fenomas

9 ms·

151.
by fenomas 2y ago
I put it: "copilot doesn't save me much thinking, but it saves a ton of typing".
152.
by fenomas 2y ago
Usages exist inside contexts, and the context of the post you replied to was unambiguous. Changing it like s/VPNs/services advertised as VPNs/ would not clarify anything to anyone, and changing it like s/VPNs/proxie
153.
by fenomas 2y ago
It's great how the most niche of posts still find their aficionados <3
154.
by fenomas 2y ago
My canonical answer is "Violet" by Jeremy Freese: https://ifdb.org/viewgame?id=4glrrfh7wrp9zz7b
155.
by fenomas 2y ago
Agreed - I read the whole thing and I'm not sure what this even is . I guess an SSG and with a design system? If so, all the React bashing comes off like "airplanes are too complicated these days, check out this bicycle". E
156.
by fenomas 2y ago
That comparison would only make sense if compressed images were considered derivative works. They're not - copyright doesn't protect bytes on a disk, it protects creative expressions . Lossy compression doesn't affect the cr
157.
by fenomas 2y ago
I think that argument falls down though, because a derivative work is an expressive work in its own right, and model weights aren't. It would seem more coherent to argue that a model output could be a derivative work, though it would n
158.
by fenomas 2y ago
There was nothing in your comment subtle enough to miss, or that I haven't seen a hundred times in threads like this, and my reply stands.
159.
by fenomas 2y ago
You've walked into a pretty innocuous conversation here, and tried to start a culture-war argument even though nobody present has actually taken the position you want to argue against. Please consider not doing that in the future.
160.
by fenomas 2y ago
Sure, I follow. FWIW, every time I've seen this discussed in a corporate context there was always a suggested alternative, and it was always "folks".
161.
by fenomas 2y ago
I agree with you about TFA, but: > the literal definition of guys is: Persons of either sex I'm no culture warrior, but this isn't accurate at all. That's a definition, but it's not the usual one - ask someone &quot
162.
by fenomas 2y ago
One of my theories about DEI programs is: the people running the programs see their only failure mode as "we fail to improve our metric", but the much more dangerous failure mode is "current employees see our program as a jok
163.
by fenomas 2y ago
> Why do you think this matters? I said that in passing, maybe I should have omitted it - the main point with the priors is that the respondents didn't know them. It's normal for a study to compare N things to a control by test
164.
by fenomas 2y ago
> I'm not saying that any change to Turing's formulation would be bad, just that the paper's variation is specifically bad. I understand that, and I'm saying there is no "Turing's formulation". His pape
165.
by fenomas 2y ago
The setup Turing describes isn't the "both must sum to 100%" setup you're presenting. He has two different games being played, one with two humans and one with human-vs-machine, and suggests comparing the results. E.g. i
166.
by fenomas 2y ago
Thanks for the paper! I wasn't aware of it but it's very much what I wanted to say. The bit about Turing's other test involving chess was particularly interesting.
167.
by fenomas 2y ago
I think the point of the man/woman version of the game is that it lets Turing propose his question in relative terms. He doesn't ask "can the machine fool somebody N% of the time?" (as several in this thread imagine), bu
168.
by fenomas 2y ago
Seems to have been a bit of confusion in several directions here, but just to clarify: in modern usage 金子 is read only as Kaneko, and is a very common surname. The "kinsu" reading is archaic; a typical native speaker may never hav
169.
by fenomas 2y ago
Um. I follow you but that's a pretty huge stretch, considering that nothing in the paper is inconsistent with the conventional reading (that the machine is to imitate a person). There are sentences that are consistent with other readin
170.
by fenomas 2y ago
This gets brought up a lot, but it seems to me like a simple misreading. Turing describes an initial game with a man (A) and a woman (B), where A's goal is to imitate B, and then asks: "what will happen if a machine takes the plac
171.
by fenomas 2y ago
I don't understand why debates like this crop up. The premise of Turing's paper is plainly stated - that asking questions about an "Imitation Game" is more useful than asking whether machines can think. That's all!
172.
by fenomas 2y ago
Looks like a bug - that card has an overlay at a higher z-index that obscures its mouseover and clicks. In the source the (i) links to Turing's original "Imitation Game" paper, and the (?) has this hover text: > (?) While
173.
by fenomas 2y ago
When people talk about a callback in this kind of context they usually mean one function passed as an argument to another, in order to be invoked with the latter function's return value. Not event handlers like onclick, etc.
174.
by fenomas 2y ago
> you might be better off just offloading that optimized synchronous op to a worker thread (or to wasm) to not block the UI. It works in principle, but note that this really complicates your build process. In particular, if you're w
175.
by fenomas 2y ago
> or is pretending to feel for some agenda Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
176.
by fenomas 2y ago
Nothing about this is correct, at least in the US. Copyright infringement is a civil matter - the IP owner can sue over it, but it's not a crime and the state doesn't get involved (unless something else is going on beyond just inf
177.
by fenomas 2y ago
> Piracy is not expressive content. You call it a game, and therefore it must be - but it's not. It's simply an illegal good. It doesn't have to serve any purpose. It cannot be bound by copyright, due to the illegal nature
178.
by fenomas 2y ago
The distinction between a copy and a derivative work isn't the issue. A game is expressive content , regardless of whether it's cracked, modified, public domain, or whatever. If you distribute a pirated game, the thing you'r
179.
by fenomas 2y ago
If you added something to the painting then you're selling a derivative work, and if you didn't then you're selling a copy of the work itself - but either way an expressive work is being used, which is what copyright law re
180.
by fenomas 2y ago
Indeed, and to me it's one of the reasons it's hard to argue that generative AI violates copyright. At least in the US, a derivative work is a creative (i.e. copyrightable) work in its own right. Neither AI models nor their output

More ›