Oh I thought there was some other CVE acronym I was unaware of. I don’t think periodically git cloning a repo every few days would be something to worry about. Ever since the Yuzu take down I got in the habit of mirroring a bunch of repos that I’d be very sad to lose, just as a precaution, it probably won’t matter, but it’s a tiny peace of mind knowing I could at the very least compile it myself if it was lost.

Gonna explain or just continue to mock me?

What does that mean?

Selfhosting my own git server, partially to mirror repos like this.

After this article I’ve started binge watching this whole channel. Extreme in depth analysis and code walking of NES games in assembly is so interesting. Really makes you appreciate how small and simple the platform was. “Optimizing” a game really feels like a noticeable difference. I also learned how Gameshark codes work, they’re just editing addresses and OP codes directly.

That’s sorta the curse of an open protocol is that anyone, even your enemies, can use them. I am no fan of Meta. I am a big fan of open standards, monkey’s paw and all. It is not a case of tolerating the intolerant. To restrict Meta out of using ActivityPub is against the spirit of open standards. The protocol is no longer open, and THEN we really have something to worry about.

Don’t worry I’ve been quoted EEE enough times. I really don’t think that is the direction this will go down. If Meta actually embraces it, then the whole of the fediverse grows over all. Then, if Meta does extend the ActivityPib protocol in a way the that becomes incompatible with the rest of the ecosystem, we just let them go and do their own thing. ActivityPub already has a userbase, if they join us, and then later on cause problems then everything just goes back to how it is right now. The final E can’t realistically happen because the existing ecosystem will just carry on exactly as it is now. If people on Threads want to communicate with us, then they need to speak the same protocol. If they don’t, then they don’t get to participate.

Do you genuinely believe that the whole community of the fediverse would just lie down and accept breaking changes to the protocol without resistance? There are too many talented and passionate people invested in this ecosystem, the absolute worst case scenario is the protocol itself gets forked, and again the exist communities just carry on. There is no extinguish time line. Everyone points to how Meta handled XMPP, please compare the user bases of ActivityPub vs XMPP. The world has changed a lot since then. Another example I’d like to point out is Hashicorp’s Terraform. They explicitly tried to EEE, and the moment they attempted the final E, it was instantly forked, and the open licensed fork was adopted into the Linux Foundation and the ecosystem carried on.

Take that what you will, but I am reasonably convinced ActivityPub has enough support and community that any EEE attempt will inevitably fail. The front ends will change, the hosters will come and go, the open standard is here to stay.

What do you mean by Mastodon selling out to Meta? Isn’t Meta just building an ActivityPub based platform so we can talk to their users as far as I know. If they want to talk to us, then the onus is on Meta to stay compatible. If they aren’t, then we just continue on as we have.

Cemu doesn’t seem to have a problem with profitability. The litigation was about circumvention of encryption and blatant piracy advocation.

Then we just disable it, and run the DLSS natively.

100% agree. Universal Basic Income feels inevitable as a solution. Better and better technology puts machines in place of human labor, with no guarantee that other jobs will come into existence to replace the ones lost. Is it not the ideal goal to have machines do all labor, leaving humans to do what they actually want without fear of homelessness and starvation.

It just kinda sucks right now because these systems don’t exist to support this changing landscape.

Which is exactly the same as how there were no new jobs for horses created. Employment is not a right. You have to either adapt with the changing times, or become unemployed. I agree that it sucks.

Anyone know the status of the single player tarkov project? Been a while since I looked at it, and I’d like to bring it into the discussion when the parent company is threatening the community essentially.

Improvements in technology do not guarantee employment for tradespeople of current technology. A whole lot of horses became unemployed when cars became ubiquitous. I’d say the improvement of cars to society is worth the loss of employment to all those who maintained the horse’s infrastructure. Like all those manufacturing jobs lost from the improvement in machines, professional creatives must adapt to the times, or seek other forms of work. No different than any other job in all of history.

By writing text on their platform, you consented to their free and unlimited use of your text. Terms of Service and EULA on practically all platforms has this boilerplate legal agreement. You DID consent. Facebook has access to a massive amount of text, same with Google. They don’t need to bother stealing when so much is already in their databases.

Now if you never wrote any text published on any platform with that agreement, sure you could have an argument there.

I would argue they already have. Just as cars used to be slow, inefficient, and loud, compared to today. Overtime their will inevitably be improvements in how they run, but also improvements in dedicated hardware support. Timeline wise, we are enjoying the hot new Model T, knowing eventually we will get to have a modern Honda Civic.

I despise that the artwork generators are all based on theft.

Ownership of anything is difficult to define. The internet has accelerated this loosening of definition. If I pay a subscription to use my coffee pot, do I really own it? If I take a picture of the coffee pot, do I own the picture? If I pay a photographer to take a picture of the pot do I own the picture, do I own their time?

I don’t intend on trying changing your opinion on theft, but its interesting to think about how ownership feels very different as time goes by.

I don’t think that can exist within the current understanding of LLMs. They are probabilistic, so nothing is 0% or 100%, and slight changes to input dramatically change the output.

Would the red team use a prompt to instruct the second LLM to comply? I believe the HordeAI system uses this type of mitigation to avoid generating images that are harmful, by flagging them with a first pass LLM. Layers of LLMs would only delay an attack vector like this, if there’s no human verification of flagged content.

To me, there is no greater high than seeing big negative numbers on a commit. Deleting stuff is the most satisfying experience in programming. A commit with +10, -142 is mint.