skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can learn so much on YouTube, and you can be entertained for hours, sometimes to a fault. You can watch movies, interact live with like-minded people, and share videos effortlessly. You can also make a business out of content production, build an audience, and make good money with the right combo of audience insight and hard work. That's not without caveats, just like anything. All of this must be worth something. Is it worth $12 per month? I believe the answer is yes.
so you say what disqualifies AI is that it's a lot faster than humans at doing the same task
Using old-school lye will get rid of PFAS on your clothes. I wonder if that was considered during these tests.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-way-destroy-p...
The difference is that radical left-wingers usually want better wages, free, universal health care, free education, a solution to climate change, gun control, equal chances. Some of them also advocate for a societal transition to veganism, banning cars, and universal basic income. Radical left-wingers tend to reject political and business elites. They tend to reject religion.

The radical right-wingers are white supremacists frequently committing acts of domestic terrorism. They are hostile toward education and science. They support a free market with trickle-down economics and no regulations. They worship oligarchs, hoping to become like them. They regularly call for normalcy and the sanctity of the family unit, but they also think that women don't deserve rights, because they are thin-skinned and can't stand to lose any of their privilege. They call everyone snowflakes, sheeps and cucks, which is exactly who they are. They love watching oligarchs living it up on their dime. Most of their idols are scam artists preying on their fears.
Getty's business relies on the legal framework of copyright, and how it enables control (and sale) of the licensing of copyrighted material. And they're saying: nope - AI output is so ambiguous w.r.t. copyright and licensing of the inputs (when it's not flagrantly in violation, as with recreating our watermarks), that we want to steer totally clear of this.

When HN has discussed Github's Copilot [1] for coding, it seems like the role of copyright and licensing isn't discussed in much detail [2] (with some exceptions awhile back [3, 4]).

Do you think there is a software-development analog to Getty (I mean a company, not FSF), saying "no copilot-generated code here"? Or is the issue of copyright/licensing/attribution even murkier with code than for images?

[1] https://github.com/features/copilot/

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=1&prefix=false&qu...

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32187362

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31874166
If you ignore the assumptions he made about the motives about the other participants in his story, most of it is pretty well within the shape of expected behavior.

Person is stopped on the street because of looking like suspect. On closer look, doesn't actually look like suspect but acts oddly and invites police to arrest him. They arrest him, and are not gentle with the handcuffs or putting him into the car. The actual suspect is caught elsewhere, but Bobby is arrested on suspicion of acting oddly, not of being the bank robber, so no reason to let him go. The part about choking him during interrogation, I dunno, anyway they interrogated him and were unsatisfied. Placed naked into empty cell with the light on seems like normal procedure (whether that's right or wrong) for someone arrested for behaving oddly; then being transferred to solitary doesn't seem out of the norm either. That they were considering sending him to a mental hospital and concerned about suicide is consistent with that treatment. Bobby offers that he was doing a lot of screaming and what not during this time. Eventually, someone in charge takes a look in and asks direct questions and Bobby gets his clothes back and his phone call and released.

This isn't treatment I'd like to have, and I'd like for it not to be normal, but unfortunately, it's pretty much normal, so I don't think there's a whole lot to be skeptical about --- with the exception of the choking. That could have happened, or it might not have, I don't know if that was really normal or not; I think a lot of interrogations are now video recorded for many reasons, but probably not in 1981
Oops, thank you! Need more coffee.
Something in those words reminds me of what some people were saying in early 1930s Nazi Germany: "Serves them right. Goddamn Jews."

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

—Martin Niemöller

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-nie...
Year after year after year (7 years in a row), Rust is the most loved language on the Stack Overflow survey. Maybe it's just that good.
That argument makes sense to explain why recommendations are terrible, but not why search is terrible.
I always got a weird spidey sense from Getty Images and similar stock photo sites, and this just solidifies it. They exist in this limbo between open and closed, somehow finding a way to greatly enrich themselves while simultaneously not enriching their content contributors. Same for sites that put published papers behind paywalls, and even news sites that block access to articles unless the user goes to the enormous effort of (gasp) opening a new private window in the browser.

I don't know how, but that stuff all has to end. We've got to move past this tragedy of the commons that's happening with copyright. We all suffer just so a handful of greedy rent seekers can be the gate keepers and shake us down.

I had hoped that we'd have real micropayments by now so people could each spend perhaps $10 per month and distribute those funds to websites they visit and content they download, a few pennies at a time. Instead we somehow got crypto pyramid schemes and NFTs.

I'm just, I'm just, I don't even know anymore! Can someone explain it? Why aren't the people with the resources solving this stuff? Why do they put that duty onto the hacker community, which has to toil its life away in its parents' basement on a shoestring budget as yet another guy becomes a billionaire?

I'm just so over all of the insanity. How would something like this AI ban even be enforceable? Whatever happened to fair use? Are they going to spy on everything we do now and send the copyright police? Truly, what gives them the right? Why are we paying these people again?
Very. Nukes are special. There aren't really any degrees of nuance with nuclear weapons. The hysteria over fallout alone will polarize the world like it has never been polarized. Ever.
Yea, my rule of thumb is: The more aggressive a company is trying to get me to subscribe, the less likely I will subscribe. On one end of the spectrum are sites that operate via donation and don't loudly ask that I donate. I'm more likely to subscribe to them. On the other end is YouTube Premium.
Politics and war aside, I think it's cool that the profile of the B-2/B-21 airframe closely resembles a falcon in a dive. The control scheme of the falcon is similar too. I wonder how much of it is a coincidence and how much is a sort of convergent evolution.

https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshopbattles/comments/g9jn6r/ps...
> what simple insects do

It should be clearly inferred if I'm invoking deception tactics that I'm not talking about "simple insects". But that is still a large number, out of 925,000 species.

> To which I'd say: yes exactly, and that's why eusocial insects have the largest brains among insects.

The connection you're supposed to make here is they still don't exhibit the level of consciousness and intelligence you had been purporting. I don't see why octopi should be any different.
Business opportunity right there...
I started there but ended with the writer. First of all, they are paying for the product in time spent watching ads, and second of all if YouTube is going to offer this ad-supported product they should offer a good ad supported product. It’s like complaining about arduous enterprise software, it’s not that they don’t want to watch ads, but five or 11 in a row, is that even good for the advertisers if people are watching multiple or the same ad?

YouTube wants to have their cake and eat it to, in terms of a free product to get users and be the market leader and then hound those users .
I wonder if it applies to photoshop neural filters, or any kind of ML touchup like an instagram face filter. (Probably not but the line seems awfully thin and arbitrary.)
That's wonderful to hear! I'm very excited about where Framework is going these days.
I'm not GP, but tackling AMD or a dedicated GPU sounds like a ton more work than Chromebook. Plus Google partnered with them, so presumably helped with some of the work. I would guess this effort didn't really take all that much, but it allowed them to try a new bet that might pay off, and establish a potentially useful partnership. I too would rather a dedicated GPU and/or AMD option, but I care as much for the health of the company as I do for the product offering (since frame.work failing or changing would be a tragic loss) so this seems like a reasonable shot to take. I really hope it works!
Both are easy to bypass with uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock. Not all videos are indexed by SponsorBlock but between helping out on my own marking the ad timestamps and the huge amount of people already doing so, I barely ever see an ad on YouTube. And that goes for both mobile (polymorphicshade's fork of NewPipe) and Android TV (SmartTube Next) as well.
As with many of the Nazi regulations, they were quite elaborate as they tried to thread competing motivations. Being active in the faith wasn't a binary test for determining if someone was a Jew or was Mischlinge.
I think the email is just a failure notification, not a second factor.
Is it a big issue if some AI generated pictures are included in training datasets?

They would be cherry picked by humans, we don’t share the bad pictures, and generated from other/older models.
http://tmplbook.com/ and study the source code of some good-quality open source project, for example https://github.com/fmtlib/fmt/

and this could be also handy: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/meta
This is fake (at least for now). They can sell it. All tickets to Turkey, Dubai have already sold
Me as well, but with 48GB of RAM what is the point? They should sell at least 96GB one. There is no pressure/enticement to upgrade from A6000 to be honest.
I usually amplify this, but with tiers (i.e. as a bounty) it suddenly makes a lot of sense to me. Not all issues are bugs.

The perverse incentive would be to avoid fixing bugs or adding features because someone might add a bounty to it in the future, but that's limited by the possibility of a fork. Maybe limit UI for bounties to FOSS projects (that can be forked.)
I agree. Of all the "premium" services from any company, I find TY Premium to be near or at the top as far as cost/benefit.

My main complaint is that I cannot sign up for YT Premium Family on my Google Workspace account where my family members have lots of YT history under their emails.
They may have spent or lost some of those dollars though!
>At least for two of the websites listed by Twitch in the new policy, the websites themselves don’t set the odds. They don’t even make the slot games. A third party creates the games, sets the odds, and provides these websites an API for them to use.

Not strictly true. Casino operators have access to the game provider tools. Some providers allow you to tweak RTP per game or even per player.

Yes, the Casino operator doesn't make the games, but they don't need to when the game creators expose all this configuration through their tooling and APIs.
This is great news! Chromebooks don’t have to be low spec machines! I recent bought a machine off of the list at https://support.google.com/chromeosflex/answer/11513094?hl=e... just so that I could have a decent device with decent specs to run ChromeOS Flex—and the more I use it, the more I enjoy a machine that Just Works, requires little maintenance and runs alongside the flexibility of a modern Debian Linux VM.
Twitch isn't a necessary prerequisite to being online. (And it isn't being done at a time where people are actively trying to silence speech such as by DDOSing.) Twitch has very strict rules for what is allowed, more so than even YouTube. To answer your question, this is censorship but it isn't total censorship. CF enacted total censorship of KiwiFarms: but only from an online perspective. KiwiFarms can still operate by mail or by in person gatherings. So it's only total censorship online. The acceptable degree of censorship was what sparked so much outrage. The degree seen here is an everyday occurrence. It's just Twitch updating thier censorship rules.
Misleading title, they won't

> to prohibit streaming of gambling sites (..) that AREN'T licensed in the US or other jurisdictions

That mean, it is to promote the gambling sites that are licensed, and to discourage people from promoting sites that are not licensed

Anyone who says "they take action AGAINST gambling" are full of shit and are part of the problem

But you get the society you deserve
No they do not. They assert that the AI can't be the "author", it has to be a human.

It's exactly the same as trying to assign copyright to your camera. Even though it generated the image from photons, it was the human pressing the button that mattered.
I know that feeling. You start a presentation, add a slide, and there you're faced with two boxes. The big Title, and the smaller but more imposing SubTitle.

"
B-21 Raider

Making the detectable undetectable. That's Defining Possible.
"

We all hate that superfluous subtitle.
No they did not. Just one of many incorrect translations by Western Indologists. Note that I am being very polite in calling it "incorrect translations" as it borders malice.

In fact, in the Mahabharata itself, while Lord Krishna addresses the dead Parikshit (when he was killed by the Brahmastra while being in the womb of Uttara) he states that there has never been a conflict/misunderstanding between himself and Arjuna (also called Vijaya). Forget a fight. He then grants life to Parikshit by saying the following words (Sanskrit transliteration and English translation from Kisar Mohan Ganguli's Mahabharata):

yathA me dayito dharmo brAhmaNAshcha visheShataH |
abhimanyoH suto jAto mRRito jIvatvayaM tathA || 20||

yathAhaM nAbhijAnAmi vijayena kadAchana |
virodhaM tena satyena mRRito jIvatvayaM shishuH || 21||

yathA satyaM cha dharmashcha mayi nityaM pratiShThitau |
tathA mRRitaH shishurayaM jIvatAmabhimanyujaH || 22||

"Having sat up, the daughter of the king of the Matsyas, summoning her patience, joined her hands in reverence and touched the earth with her head for saluting Kesava of eyes like the petals of the lotus. That foremost of beings, hearing those heart-rending lamentations of hers, touched water and withdrew the (force of the) Brahma-weapon. That hero of unfading glory, belonging to the race of the Dasarhas, promised to give the child his life. Then he of pure soul, said these words in the hearing of the whole universe,--'O Uttara, I never utter an untruth.

My words will prove true. I shall revive this child in the presence of all creatures. Never before have I uttered an untruth even in jest. Never have I turned back from battle. (By the merit of those acts) let this child revive! As righteousness is dear to me, as Brahmanas are specially dear to me, (by the merit of that disposition of mine) let Abhimanyu's son, who is born dead, revive! Never hath a misunderstanding arisen between me and my friend Vijaya. Let this dead child revive by that truth! As truth and righteousness are always established in me, let this dead child of Abhimanyu revive (by the merit of these)! As Kansa and Kesi have been righteously slain by me, let this child revive today by that truth!' After these words were uttered by Vasudeva, that child, O foremost one of Bharata's race, became animate and began gradually to move, O monarch."

[1]: https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m14/m14069.htm
I don’t doubt it but I think the commenter was referring to a legal means of exchanging the funds to fiat.
Interesting.

1. I took a much more charitable interpretation of their post - "Somebody has to take out the trash" to mean somebody has to be the janitor / garbage disposal expert, even though it's not traditionally a desired or easy position. And therefore in the context of this discussion, to mean "Somebody (Police, or whatever we call them) has to respond to crime and danger".

2. When you say "their purpose is not one worth serving", I don't think we merely disagree; I am honestly having a hard time fathoming the framework/thought/life perspective/point/literally anything. The purpose of police is to "serve & protect". We can agree or disagree how well they do at that; what the margins and scope and mandate and methods and oversight etc etc etc are; but if you believe protecting the weak from the strong, preventing crime is purpose not worth serving, we may have an axiomatic difference so massive we may not be able to meaningfully proceed in discussion.

(and fwiw, I've lived in Canada & USA, as well as in what some might consider police state; I've been poor and well off; I've been on the privileged and on the harassed side of class/ethnicity/nationality/religion/group; me and mine have had our share of being harassed by various police in some places, and I also had friends who are police officers in other places; but I still cannot envision a societal framework anarchic enough to say that civil protection, which is the purpose if not the implementation, is not worth serving in principle)
I'm a premium subscriber but feel like I was bullied into it rather than wanting. I can deal with the ad breaks and unskippable ads. But the skippable ads! If you let 2-3 in a row go by without skipping them, youtube starts throwing 45 minute long ads at you.

Like, I'm fine with ads, but why do I need to physically interact with them every 7 minutes or be punished.
The Vic-IV Screen Layout
As an older programmer, I'd put Y2k remediation in that category. There was a problem, people worked at fixing it, coordinating all over the place.

Come to think of it, there was a 1999 GPS week-rollover problem where people fixed it in advance, too
How much time do they have to produce these documents? Can they legally avoid doing so for now, via an appeal of some sort?
Great.

So who is now starting the Getty competitor that does accept these or (even better) accepts these and makes them available via CC license?

With good custom and tagging, easier since you have the text prompt that generated the content, you could probably disrupt Getty's entire business model in half a year.
I think you can do it on Kraken.
You should also provide links to better or more "authentic" translations then, because any curious individual will find these first upon rudimentary searching.
+ DMSO and high temperatures. Lye will probably wreck your clothes too.

Last time I played around with DMSO I made an ibuprofen ointment similar to the diclofenac ointments there were expensive and prescription-required back then.

I'd apply some to my skin and it would absorb very quick and I'd get digestive upset even more quickly than if I took ibuprofen pills so it was a success and a failure at the same time.
Have you ever actually lived in an area with zero legal enforcement of law?
> Also what the threat model is, and how ziti solves it.

Your service (anything that accepts incoming connections) is never exposed to open internet. any incoming connections are guaranteed to be from authenticated and authorized clients.

> I assume it does little to thwart traffic analysis?

It does -- the traffic is routed throw OpenZiti fabric.

> Does it suffer from tcp-over-tcp problems?

OpenZiti is not a VPN and it does not forward network packets. In application embedded cases payload is end-to-end encrypted and forwarded on overlay network.

> Would be fair to say it's similar to a private Tor network with hidden services - but without anonymity and (probably much) higher throughput?

I believe that is a fair comparison, except anonymity is replaced with strong identity support to allow configuration of authorization policies.
That's why although I do subscribe to YouTube Premium (the only Google service I still use), I only use it from an account that is not used for anything else, on a single tablet that is not used for anything else, and pay with a card that is not used for anything else.
Hi @qrkourier, you mention using the Python SDK, but it is not shown in the list of SDKs here, FYI: https://openziti.github.io/ And also there's only a couple listed here: https://openziti.github.io/api/index.html I therefore assumed there was no Python SDK...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-offic...

> An image generated through artificial intelligence lacked the “human authorship” necessary for protection

> Both in its 2019 decision and its decision this February, the USCO found the “human authorship” element was lacking and was wholly necessary to obtain a copyright, Engadget’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law only provides protections to “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind,” the USCO states. In his most recent appeal, Thaler argued this “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional, but the USCO has proven unwilling to “depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence.”

Lots of posts on the topic here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=copyright+office+ai
It probably would have cost them more than $35 million dollars all together to protect people's data by instituting sweeping corporate policies and paying for the appropriate services to delete "15 million customers" worth of data and for all the branches they closed or moved "dating as far back as 2015"

There's a disturbing trend where it's more profitable for corporations to break laws meant to protect consumers and face punitive damages (and publish cheeky articles about being chastised for it) than it is for the laws to be obeyed
>Also, a Software Bill of Materials may be required by the agency in solicitation requirements

I can't believe this isn't already required.
and that's fine and we may in fact find a strong point of agreement there.

"We don't need police" though says very different thing. It may be that it was a quick statement of strong belief, but for what it may be worth, it may not communicate to others the message/point you intend to communicate.
Though in theory, upgrading/repairing these over time would be cheaper than spending $400 every few years or each time a kid breaks one.
As long as they pay top dollar for engineers, I think some folks will happily (or unhappily) work there. AWS is a behemoth and it has its tentacles in almost every piece of internet based software we use today, it’s not going anywhere unfortunately.
Right, absolutely. That's a choice that people get to make - they can either buy a Framework laptop that does have the ability to change out the OS, or if their threat model requires it, one that doesn't. Either way, they get upgradable components and future-proofing. I don't see how that's a negative for freedom.
You are of course right, 48kWh/d/person is what the article is all about (& I'm perfectly aware of that).

But as GP[0] replied to GGP

> 2 kWh/day seems crazy low

I was under the impression that he was actually pondering a much better personal energy consumption of 83W/person. And yeah, I'm inclined to say that (with our current level of technology) achieving this number without lowering standard of living might be nearly impossible in many climate zones.

The rest of my comment is more generic.

[0] GP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32911031