Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
That suggestion is exactly the same as what I started with when I said “IMO the ideal solution would be the one Wikimedia uses, which is to make the information available in an easily-downloadable archive file.” It just cuts out the Aaron-Schwarts-style external middleman, so it’s easier and more efficient to create the downloadable data.
If someone did an Aaron-Schwartz-style scrape, then published the data they scraped in a downloadable archive so that AI trainers could download it and use it, would you find that objectionable?
so every single repository should have to spend their time, energy, and resources on accommodating a bunch of venture funded companies that want to get all of this shit for free without contributing to these repositories at all themselves?
Was Aaron Schwartz wrong to scrape those repositories? He shouldn’t have been accessing all those publicly-funded academic works? Making it easier for him to access that stuff would have been “capitulating to hackers?”
I think the problem here is that you don’t actually believe that information should be free. You want to decide who and what gets to use that “publicly-funded academic work”, and you have decided that some particular uses are allowable and others are not. Who made you that gatekeeper, though?
I think it’s reasonable that information that’s freely posted for public viewing should be freely viewable. As in anyone can view it. If they want to view all of it and that puts a load on the servers providing it, but there’s an alternate way of providing it that doesn’t put that load on the servers, what’s wrong with doing that? It solves everyones’ problems.
Even more ironically, you could probably shorten that time even more by having an AI analyze the transcript for you.
I’ve found Firefox’s Orbit extension to be quite handy whenever someone directs me to a 30-minute Youtube video as “proving” whatever point they’re trying to argue. I can pop it open and ask it to tell me what the video says about that point in just a few seconds. I wouldn’t use the AI summary as backing if I was doing surgery on someone, but for a random Internet argument it’s fine.
Also the article’s content doesn’t say what the headline says.
On the plus side, at least on the instance I’m on I was automatically given a link to when this same story was posted here three months ago. Saves some effort.
When there’s an organic-looking decline that seems like a good sign, but the sudden sharp drops seem likely a sign of “corporate oversight” and not an actual improvement.
This seems contradictory. On the one hand you’re saying that these works are wrongly locked behind paywalls, but on the other you’re saying that scraping them is an “assault on the cornerstones of our public knowledge.” Is this information supposed to be freely viewable or not?
IMO the ideal solution would be the one Wikimedia uses, which is to make the information available in an easily-downloadable archive file. That lets anyone who wants the whole thing to have it without having to “hammer” the servers. Meanwhile the servers can be protected by standard load-balancing and DDOS prevention systems.
If not now, when?
After you give Trump a peaceful off-ramp, as I said.
You may be keen to jump straight into a full blown civil war but most people would rather see that all reasonable efforts to avoid it are taken first.
He’s giving Trump an off-ramp before escalation. Most politicians are better at politics than Trump is, they don’t go straight to the nuclear option.
You may know IPv6 is ridiculously bigger, but you don’t know it.
There are enough IPv6 addresses that you could give 10^17 addresses to every square millimeter of Earth’s surface. Or 5×10^28 addresses for every living human being. On a more cosmic scale, you could issue 4×10^15 addresses to every star in the observable universe.
We’re not going to run out by giving them to lightbulbs.
They’re both optional. You can turn it off in Notepad.
“This is a machine that shows a picture of a person wearing a garment.”
Uploads a picture of a person and a picture of a garment.
Gasps in shock and indignation as it shows a picture of that person wearing that garment.
So, you’d prefer that the system require you to upload nudes of yourself first?
It turns out that for all of these different methods, you will find an extremely clear bimodal distribution that groups the 8 planets together as being highly capable of clearing their orbits whereas everything else falls into a statistically distinct non-clearing group. This is because there’s sound dynamic reasons for why objects would fall into one group or the other with nothing lasting long in the “grey area” between them. Once an object becomes significantly better than its orbital neighbors at clearing the neighborhood it snowballs due to the feedback loop of scattering or absorbing its neighbors into itself.
That makes this a good criterion for classification. As the old saying goes, “cleave nature at the joints.”
It’s not, actually. “Planet” and “Dwarf planet” are disjoint sets, according to the IAU.
Is a sea lion still a lion? Same thing.
I’ve heard that the sign of a fair bargain is that everybody leaves unhappy. So how about we name it “Pluto?” That should annoy pretty much everyone.
Unlike water, though, data can be duplicated easily.