The biggest issue is that there isn’t a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they’re already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.
The biggest issue is that there isn’t a universal agreement on what causes harm. There is agreement on the basics - murder, violence, etc - but they’re already illegal anyways, no need to ban them by license.
I’m confused… Aren’t HOA reps elected by the people living in the HOA? And generally, democracy should work better on a local level where people know each other, not worse… So why do they fail so bad?
15 hours for what period of time? The article mentions they’d refill in two days…
I like the idea, but I really hate that they’ve hardcoded the provider.
I’m somewhat skeptical. What if LetsEncrypt decided to misbehave tomorrow? Would the browsers have the guts to shut it down and break all sites using it?
It seems to me like a MITM hacker can just redirect all requests to a Blockchain node towards their malicious node.
Actually, that’s not quite as clear.
The conventional wisdom used to be, (normal) porn makes people more likely to commit sexual abuse (in general). Then scientists decided to look into that. Slowly, over time, they’ve become more and more convinced that (normal) porn availability in fact reduces sexual assault.
I don’t see an obvious reason why it should be different in case of CP, now that it can be generated.
Because it’s not a very easy case. In fact, there is no real case.
Because judges are people, not robots mindlessly applying legislation. To succeed in such case you need the judges on the trial and all appeals to all decide to maliciously comply with the law.
You obviously consented that your data can be shared with all Lemmy/Fediverse instances federated with yours, and they can distribute it to Lemmy/Fediverse users - because that’s the basic premise of Lemmy.
Now, I can host a Lemmy instances of my own and get all your posts that way. No need to bother buying them.
What social contract? When sites regularly have a robots.txt
that says “only Google may crawl”, and are effectively helping enforce a monolopy, that’s not a social contract I’d ever agree to.
Bluesky users will be able to opt into experiences that aren’t run by the company
Yea, no, the biggest server not showing federated content by default is just pseuso-federation - being able to say you have it, while not really doing it.
Not for international (non-English) results.
It is natural. Any particular individual’s actions are not natural - but the fact that, amongst a large, diverse group of people, there will be someone who would try to establish themselves or their group as rulers - is just a statistical property. So any anarchic system needs a mechanism to counter that.
skeptical that it’s technologically feasible to search through the entire training corpus, which is an absolutely enormous amount of data
Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. do it all the time.
The infraction should be in what’s generated. Because the interest by itself also enables many legitimate, non-infracting uses: uses, which don’t involve generating creative work at all, or where the creative input comes from the user.
I didn’t say anything about AIs being humans.
But AI isn’t all about generating creative works. It’s a store of information that I can query - a bit like searching Google; but understands semantics, and is interactive. It can translate my own text for me - in which case all the creativity comes from me, and I use it just for its knowledge of language. Many people use it to generate boilerplate code, which is pretty generic and wouldn’t usually be subject to copyright.
And who hasn’t contributed any code to this particular repo (according to github insights).