FaceDeer

FaceDeer, 13 hours ago

That list is out of date, several of those items have already been accomplished.

FaceDeer, 10 hours ago

Re-light Starship engines, achieve stable orbit (they deliberately cut the engines just a few meters per second shy of it on IFT-3, there's no reason not to count it), and transfer propellant (one of IFT-3's test routines during its almost-orbit was transferring propellant between internal tanks).

FaceDeer, 10 hours ago

There was a propellant transfer done during IFT-3's flight between internal tanks, too.

The list's not as big as it seems, several items are very closely related (there's three separate items for "design, build, and test a life support system" for example).

FaceDeer, 7 hours ago

They relit the engines on the booster, which are the same engines. They've been relighting engines for a while now.

FaceDeer, 1 hour ago

They shut down and relit many more engines during stage separation and the subsequent boostback burn. Here's where they relight the middle ring of Raptors.

I suppose if you want to add "in microgravity" to that list item, then yeah, they haven't done that part yet. The list item just said "Re-light Starship engines", which they have indeed done many times in many circumstances. Just not that particular one yet.

FaceDeer, 1 day ago

It's superstitious clutter. Most websites require you to license the content you post to them without those restrictions, and AI training may not even involve copyright in the first place, meaning the license is moot. It just makes you look silly.

FaceDeer, 18 hours ago

"Lemmy" isn't a website. I'm not even viewing this from a Lemmy instance, I'm on an mbin server. Do you understand how the Fediverse works? Your posts are being copied and transmitted to everyone regardless of what restrictions you claim you're putting on them, if you don't want them used that way then don't post in the first place.

And if you're finding this argument about your spam to be entertaining there's a word for that. I likely shouldn't be feeding that but this thread is already thoroughly derailed.

FaceDeer, 15 hours ago

The content can be freely redistributed provided it is fine in a noncommercial way and with attribution (which is the case, right? We see the comment author).

There's nothing preventing a Fediverse instance from showing ads, which would commercialize the comments on it.

Furthermore, they're posting from Lemmy.world. Lemmy.world's terms of service include this clause:

You waive Lemmy.World and its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all their respective staff, representatives, service providers, contractors, licensors, licensees, and successors from any claims resulting from any action taken by Lemmy.World, and any of the foregoing parties relating to any investigations by either us or by law enforcement authorities.

That goes even further than the usual boilerplate on sites like Reddit that say "you grant us license to do whatever we want with the stuff you post here."

And besides all that, copyleft licensing (and copyright in general) likely has no relevance to AI training regardless. Copyleft licensing only has power because it grants permission to make copies of something. You can actually reject a copyleft license, if you want, it just means that you can't make copies of the thing once you've rejected the license. But training an AI doesn't require making copies of anything, it only requires analyzing a copy that you already have. You don't need permission to analyze something that you can already legally read.

There are of course some interesting court cases currently wending their way through various legal systems, and all sorts of legislation pending in all sorts of different countries, but as things stand right now that CC link is just pointless spam that's being held up as a totem against witchcraft.

FaceDeer, 10 hours ago

Again, I'm not even using a Lemmy instance. You're clearly trolling at this point.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

Clicking a checkbox in a settings menu is so complicated, though!

Simpler to install Linux, a whole new operating system, and try to figure out how to either run your Windows apps there or find new equivalent applications to use.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

Setting preferences is exactly what this is, though.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

I've worked with a Linux installation that had plenty of bloat and marketing by default too, I spent a fair bit of time combing through it turning off stuff I definitely didn't want. Whether it "should" or "shouldn't" doesn't change that it is.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

So much simpler than clicking a checkbox in Windows' settings.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

Mine has learned all the various ways people say "goodbye" at the end of a virtual meeting and gets really excited when she hears one of them. She knows it means I can pay attention to her now.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

Reminds me of the classic superstition in the pigeon psychological study.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

He wasn't convicted.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

the trial judge improperly allowed women to testify about allegations against the ex-movie mogul that weren’t part of the case.

Well, yeah, that's a pretty major problem. If they're bringing in allegations that aren't part of the case how is the defendant supposed to defend himself against that?

Everyone getting angry about this as a miscarriage of justice, I agree, but direct that anger at the judge and prosecutors who screwed it up so badly. Echoes of Cosby getting off due to a prosecutor making a stupid deal, or OJ getting off because the police apparently tried to frame a guilty man.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

It was because the defense was able to cast doubt on the evidence because of how terribly it was handled. The best evidence in the world won't help if the police and the prosecution screw it all up.

FaceDeer, 1 day ago

Yeah. Lots of people parrot the phrase "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer," but then as soon as some specific guilty person goes free they go "no, wait, let me amend that..."

It does annoy me that the guilty men going free does tend to skew strongly towards rich guilty men, simply because they can afford to fight it out. But I'd rather everyone get the chance to fight it out rather than remove those opportunities. Maybe if everyone had the opportunity to fight for all their rights the police and prosecutors would start taking more care not to violate them.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

I suspect the people doing these things don't sit down ahead of time and think "Hm, if I get caught I could go to jail for four years instead of two... I'd accept two, but four is too much." Generally speaking the exact severity of the punishment isn't really all that relevant. It's how likely the person is to be caught at all that gives criminals pause.

I think the best thing to do would be to highly publicize situations like this where attempts to frame people fail. Make people who were thinking of doing something like this aware that they can be caught, and they'll hopefully rethink themselves. And ideally it'll be useful for the victims too, to be able to point to these cases when they tell people they didn't really say those horrible things.

FaceDeer, 3 days ago

My first thought too, "finally something in the chain that's honest."

It'd be good to audit it now and then, of course.

FaceDeer, 3 days ago

Reddit has the data. AI trainers have the data. Ordinary people Googling for help with their obscure problems get the junk it was overwritten with.

FaceDeer, 3 days ago

That's my point. They won't.

And even if they did, it's unclear that copyright has anything to say about AI training anyway.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

You absolutely can vandalize your own work. People are destroying posts they made that other people find useful, purely out of spite.

Reddit may allow it, it may be totally legal, but that doesn't make a difference to my opinion that it's petty vandalism.

Go ahead and downvote away, that doesn't change anything either.

FaceDeer, 2 days ago

You can sue about anything you want in the United States, it remains to be seen whether the courts will side with them. I think it's unlikely they'll get much of a win out of it.

A law that requires disclosing a summary of training data isn't going to stop anyone from using that training data.