Xelynega

33 ms·

421.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the tool in the OP sounds like a crowdsourcing effort to collect the data the Facebook tool can tell you across multiple users and multiple sites. That's not really the same thing as a tool that tells
422.
by Xelynega 4y ago
I think their point is that Andrew Wiles' flawed proof was shown to a community and improved without any automated testing because something can be verified before it's integrated and that verification never changes. You don'
423.
by Xelynega 4y ago
If interface A is verified to be correct code(not tested) and it's replaced with interface B that's also verified to be correct, why would there be any regressions? The reason I see not to do it is it takes time away from writing
424.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Because we made the algorithms and can confirm these theories apply to them. We can speculate they apply to certain models of slices of human behaviour based on our vague understanding of how we work, but not nearly to the same degree.
425.
by Xelynega 4y ago
How is that restrictive? Doesn't it just mean that any outputs of the model also fall under the same license so they can be used in public datasets?
426.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Let me guess that you write more code than visual art? Isnt it a bit anthropomorphic to compare the two algorithms by "how a human believes they work" instead of "what they're actually doing different to the inputs to cr
427.
by Xelynega 4y ago
As long as they aren't repackaging and redistributing them, why would looking at them be illegal?
428.
by Xelynega 4y ago
> If you can't process/digest copyrighted content with algorithms/machine learning then Google Search (the whole thing, not just Image Search) is dead. Not if Google honors the robots.txt like they say they do. Hosting con
429.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Yea I find when people say "ideas shouldn't be ownable" it's really the more general "deriving profit from private ownership was a mistake". Like you kinda point out, most of the reason I can think of that a pe
430.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Doesn't your argument in the first paragraph assume that the methods by which humans derive new works from past experiences is equivalent to the way statistical models iteratively remove noise from images based on a set of abstract fea
431.
by Xelynega 4y ago
"Does your computer run out of battery 10x faster while on the site" should be a site performance issue if it's something in the sites js thats eating the battery.
432.
by Xelynega 4y ago
> The point is that there are a lot of applications the attacker could attempt to target(through social engineering, malicious pull request, etc.) If you want to discuss the potential damage an attacker can do with a GitHub account, why
433.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Sure, in a future 100 years from now when AI is an actual general AI and not the specialized algorithms we have today, one might be able to argue that it does things the same way as a person(although one would hope it does then better inste
434.
by Xelynega 4y ago
By deconstructing the "decisions"(to use a disgusting anthropomorphism) that led to either image we can dismiss the "I don't understand, so it must be doing something greater than it is" rhetoric. The decisions lead
435.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Art is in the eye of the beholder, but it still needs a creator. That creator had a vision in mind that's unique to them because of their experiences, and I think it's wrong to say that this image can be quantified as a location i
436.
by Xelynega 4y ago
I think we're kidding ourselves to think that clustering features of existing works and iteratively removing noise based on that clustering is somehow comparable to building up human experiences and expressing them through art. Using t
437.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Or paying someone who put in the thousand of hours among several years instead of getting a mashup of their art out of a statistical model.
438.
by Xelynega 4y ago
How is sending someone to prison for 50 years "reversible"?
439.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Mismanaged according to who, him? He bought it because he forced the stock price down with the announcement and was forced into buying it.
440.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Then don't enable the default-off setting to allow the app to send SMS?
441.
by Xelynega 4y ago
So what's the overlap of "people who care enough about e2ee for it to matter whether a message they're sending is encrypted or not" and "people who think the lock icon next to the send button in the encrypted messen
442.
by Xelynega 4y ago
You sound misguided if you're trying to explain the details of signal to get them to use it. All they need to understand to use the app is "its sms", any e2ee they benefit from as a result are completely in the background.
443.
by Xelynega 4y ago
This kind of thinking is exactly what's killing signal. Why would you want to gatekeep the security of others instead of making t as accessible as possible? To me this feels like signal not understanding that their intended userbase an
444.
by Xelynega 4y ago
UX elements already exist to tell the user whether they're encrypted or not, removing the ability to send unencrypted shrinks their userbase while ensuring the apps adoption plummets. There, points addressed. Can we move on?
445.
by Xelynega 4y ago
You're telling me it's not innovative to run psychological experiments on children without any approval from an ethics board? Sounds pretty innovative to me
446.
by Xelynega 4y ago
> IMO income based taxation is theft.... How could income based taxation be theft unless we're considering all profit theft? Either it's immoral for someone with power over you to demand part of the value you produce or it isn&
447.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Does this mean that it's OK for an employer to put cameras in employee bathrooms? The argument can be made that it's not the employers responsibility to provide me with unfettered access to a space to do personal stuff with, just
448.
by Xelynega 4y ago
Why are you giving interns root access to production servers?
449.
by Xelynega 4y ago
You missed their point. The EU "locked" devices into micro B but somehow they still managed to switch to USB-C when it became viable. How could they have switched if they were as "locked in" as you think?
450.
by Xelynega 4y ago
I think it was pretty obvious from context clues that they were talking about USB since it's standardized. If lightning were standardized then other companies would be able to produce the cables. I don't see what your point is.

More ›