Joined the Mayqueeze.
I would argue no one could choose one. A lingua franca is silently agreed upon over long periods of time. No committee sat down to make old Frankish the language of trade, modern French the language of diplomacy, and nowadays English the language of internet arguments.
If I had a magic wand though my vote is Klingon as well. Qa’plah.
Lingua franca is technically two words. Lingua franca refers to an old Germanic language lost to language evolution and time, not modern-day French. And using the term to denote a language that is widely understood by different people who don’t all speak it natively is perfectly understood, 20 years ago and today. The admittedly very eurocentric expression fills a useful niche because any explanation in vernacular English inevitably becomes much longer than these two established Latin words. But because it’s Latin the expression is also widely understood on the European continent as well.
We’ll never know until another NSA employee defects to Russia.
Just to add more context: these are good guy hackers who have responsibility shared their findings with the companies affected. It took them around 3 years to translate the signals they intercepted. And as far as anybody can tell, no one used this in the wild. It’s wild but it isn’t Snowden-wild.
A mistake implies there was a choice involved at some point. And it doesn’t even matter if you’re on the evolution or intelligent design side of the argument, us monkeys were never given a choice.
I mean technically this exists to an extent in English. “You can’t touch this!” - “I can too.” (Every word is stressed). Or endless sandbox arguments along the lines of “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - “Too!” - “Not!” - you get the idea. It’s more pronounced as a concept in Germanic languages that haven’t strayed as far away as English has but they still have it.
In this scenario and considering old people are at a higher statistical risk of passing away: it is possible. However, the same message will play if you end your subscription because you moved to a different place and couldn’t transfer the number to your new place. Disused phone numbers don’t get redistributed right away, the phone companies use their own system of how long it has to remain fallow.
Backpfeiffengesicht, a face you want to slap or is for various reasons in need of a slap
The problem is, I think, abundance of quality - or the lack thereof. For all the research based prizes, there is enough stuff floating around the ether that you can pick something interesting and worth the prize to be awarded. Old Phil Physicist, not by accident a man, will get the prize for fundamental research into clockwise spinning protons and that helps us today with welding or something. Nobody but the experts understands this and we’re okay with that.
And then Literature and Peace. They seem more subjective. Us non-labcoats have opinions on these ones. And thus the controversy likelihood is much higher.
Since they get awarded every year, it’s become a fixture in media coverage. Like the New Year’s ball drop, Carnival in Rio, the Pope urbi’ing et orbi’ing, Black Friday, etc. It’s predictable news coverage.
I don’t think they should stop it. Even the institutionalized reminder once a year that it’s worth it working towards peace is not a bad thing. I think the prize has the most gravitas when it’s awarded for long time services to peace on the books. Like giving it to the chemical weapons disposers, the red crescent/cross or even the EU, which has probably prevented more deaths from wars within than it has tolerated refugees drowning in the Med. They have done more good stuff for peace. It’s tricky when they give it to people for more current achievements. Kissinger wasn’t the peacemaker it looked like he was. Aung San Su Kyi was a great figurehead while under house arrest 1.0 - and arguably not great enough for the Rohingya when she was let out. Obama got it because they thought he wasn’t Bush, and then he sent the drones. We want our laureates to be saints and it hurts when we find out they are just flawed humans.
I would argue this isn’t a shitpost because it’s entirely accurate and not a tad off color.
Can’t see anything.
I’m only allowed to switch our old desktop to Linux now that Win10 support is running out. My partner objected until now and I chose to die on other hills. But now, when I have a weekend to spare, I can finally switch over to probably Ubuntu.
If you care about things beyond the operations, the Proton boss came out in support of 47’s adminstration with regards to regulating big tech IIRC. I’m not aware the Mullvad chief did something similar.
Proton works well. But it’s designed to be the basket for all your eggs (VPN, office suite, email, etc.). They want you to use all their services and push for upgrades to the highest tier. I found their customer support you be … very … slow.
If you need port forwarding, AirVPN is another option. I think they’re cheaper than Mullvad but it’s held together by dedication and duct tape. It works okay but read their website first to see if you’re okay with how it’s set up.
Neither of us are legal scholars, are we. If I pretended to be one, I would say the government acting as a user on somebody else’s platform or the government running its own platform are different enough circumstances not to derive comparisons from.
No, I would not want to join such an instance but I wouldn’t mind its existence. Nobody could really federate with it. So you create a niche server in an already niche environment.
I am not convinced the conclusion “if the government runs it, the first amendment has to apply” is apt. Even if the server was run from under the house majority leader’s desk - which I don’t think it would, this smells more like an outsourced undertaking - moderation on the platform is not “making a law.” And proprietors of platforms are legally compelled to moderate in certain cases, e.g. when illegal stuff like child sexual abuse is involved.
There are at least two discussions going on here simultaneously. Is the process of a beefed up spell checker sucking up all the data the same as an artist looking at what had come before, before either of them churn out new art? I’m inclined to agree with you; the process does seem similar enough. The difference remains that one is a statistical model and the other is a human being. So even if the process appears similar enough, they are two different types of player and I can also agree that we should not treat them the same. One is able to throw constant massive amounts of spaghetti at the wall as long as there are chips and power and the other is limited by their health and more limited processing power. So where the compromise lands in this discussion simply isn’t clear yet. And while you and I can discuss this, I can say for myself at least I’m not smart enough to see where this goes eventually.
The other discussion is how all of it collides with existing copyright/trademark law, which is essentially different in every country. Constitutional rights, like freedoms of expression and the arts, are given to real people, not computers. But at least one supreme court in this planet has made corporate money a form of free speech. So eff knows where LLMs end up.
This is new territory we’re in. And I fear that’s why it will take another decade until we get a legal landmark decision or a political compromise that will be similar enough all around the world.
The law mostly disagrees with the memes = theft. A lot of it is covered through freedom of speech and fair use. If you have taken a bit of content, changed it a bit, recontextualized, and reposted it, you are most likely in the clear. Especially if the original content was publicly posted. This gets less clear if you are using the likeness of a private person but this will also depend on context. Where in the world you are, if this content was captured in a public space or from something published - the list goes on, like some stuff can be trademarked as well, and I’m no lawyer. A lot of these things run under the legal doctrine of “no plaintiff, no judge.” I feel artists in general have accepted that anything they post online is just potentially gone. And if no one steals their content to make money off it, they’re not going to hire a lawyer, whom they cannot afford.
And I’m not saying any of this is great but that’s an established status quo.
The reason why so-called AI generated art gets decried is twofold. It’s new and we don’t like new things. And in order for it to be created, the models have to suck in all the training data they can. And they don’t tend to pay for it. So that’s where some people see theft happening. But that’s not settled law yet because it’s fairly new, there are plaintiffs but not enough judges have passed judgement yet. Do they have to pay for stuff that’s publicly available? Where is the line, if any? Is imitation of a style okay if there is more to the work than just copying something from Studio Ghibli or Disney? These questions are going to keep a lot of legal professionals in bacon for a long time still.
This shit is hard. It’s more gray than black and white.
When they use idioms and expressions incorrectly.
Thanks for the correction