Our current understanding is not enough to state that with confidence. We used to be so confident with classical mechanics and even claims that physics is almost complete. God knows how long our current probabilistic model will last before we find another better model. It may be probabilistic, or it may not.
Gödel Incompleteness Theorem and the boundary of our understanding of the universe.
It is worse in HW prototyping where sometimes loose wire is all over the place
I mean, if I understand it correctly, audio signals are additive so you don’t need to do fancy instrument changing. Simply add the sample of different instruments to the audio buffer and those can be played. If someone knows better about acoustic theory then please correct me.
The game was particularly notable for a musical score that simulated multiple instruments by swapping between them faster than the human ear could differentiate.
Why… I understand the reasoning for visual feedback, but audio?
Yes, that’s it! Now that you mentioned it I’ve started to re read it. It was as wack as I remember lol. And it was an ogre btw!
To be honest, that is one rad use cases. Games usually don’t have privacy concern as much as day to day usage. The problem is the fucking recall works by denylist instead of allowlist
Instagram by Meta has started using user generated content for their training data. Naturally users are upset about this and are flocking to a new platform named Cara made by an artist which has principle and are actively fighting for artist copyright. Cara uses Vercel to host their platform. The problem is that the sudden influx of users means bigger bills to pay to handle those traffic (I think they are billed around ~$96k). As of now, it is unclear how they will proceed to pay the bills. The creator of Cara didn’t want to compromise his stance by accepting any money willy-nilly, but also acknowledged that angel investors are not easy to find.
Most probably, yes
There is a comic that I can’t remember the title of right now. But the plot is basically the whole country of Japan gets Isekai’d, land and all
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think the license being used is not legally binding? What constitutes as legally binding to you?
“What if the test fail?”
*Write a test for the test
“What if the test fail?”
*Write a test for the test
Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.
Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.
While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.
But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.
As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.
I wouldn’t call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.
Best practice for job security
I wouldn’t dare call it mislabelling since there is no precedent yet. Just the other day a judge ruled AI generated CSAM is still CSAM. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that an AI output comes from copyrighted works without proper license, will that AI violate the copyright? Also, will AI count as derivatives work from the training material or will it be treated like software compiler? I think a lot of our current legal framework is not up to speed to answer those questions. So I would not call it useless nor misleading.
Also, lemmy doesn’t have EULA as far as I am aware of so the license of the content hosted on the instance is by default unlicensed. The user just notifies that to whoever wants to use their comment for whatever purpose, must abide by those licenses.
For facebook and big corporations, you usually agree to the ToS/EULA before you actively using their services. The clause there usually protects their ass by stating you give them the license to basically do whatever the fuck they want. Sometimes even giving up the copyright entirely, like some CLA when contributing to open source projects.
But lemmy, as far as I remember, don’t have such term. So it is an interesting question since if the instance doesn’t impose a legal requirement for you to give the instance a license to do anything besides storing and serving it verbatim (like many other user-content sites. deviantart comes to mind since the user can license their image iirc). And yes, words or a string of words can be copyrighted and licensed because we do have protection for books and other text material.
I am sorry but this is too funny. “If I have a dollar for every time I accidentally drive into a tornado I’d have $2. Which isn’t much, but it’s weird that it happened twice”
So modern math is proven to be incomplete and we cannot prove that it is consistent either. Those 2 words, incomplete and consistent have a very technical meaning here.
The first is that there is a statement in modern mathematics, which is true, but cannot be proven. And even if we expand it, there will always be such a statement. Hence, incomplete.
And the second, we cannot have a system that proves everything as that system will be inconsistent. Basically if a system can prove everything, then we can easily prove 1=1 AND 1 ≠ 1. If both are proven, then we lose meaning since there is no “truth”. But a consistent system cannot prove its self consistency. Ergo, with modern math, we cannot know if math is consistent.
Now, the problem lies in that we use math to model our perceived reality. It means there is a limit to human knowledge, or put simply, there will be something in the universe that we may never know the answer to.
My favorite is the busy beaver function. There exist, at a certain number, that our modern math cannot make any meaningful statement about the function. Here is a great video about it. (youtube link warning). But you can also look at veritasium video for more in depth explanations.