nybble41

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 months ago

They didn't say it shouldn't have been developed. Improving the AI models so they can deal with this kind of malicious interference gracefully is a good thing.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The EULA also prohibits using Nightshade "for any commercial purpose", so arguably if you make money from your art—in any way—you're not allowed to use Nightshade to "poison" it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Bingo. They could do it themselves, but they want to spend other people's money, not just their own. Same as any other tax. Bonus PR points for appearing "generous".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It would be a nominal charge for storage, bandwidth, and indexing. Book stores carry public-domain titles, for profit, and most have no issue with that. You can always procure the same files somewhere else—they are public domain, after all. Those who pay are doing so for the convenience, not because they're forced to.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

They could stick to public domain & indie titles. They won't, but they could.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a case of overlapping coverage. Her personal insurance company isn't disputing that the uninsured driver was responsible. They're arguing—not unreasonably—that the organizer of the event is more directly responsible for damages incurred while participating in their event (after the driver, naturally), so their insurance should cover the expense.

No one likes to be caught in the middle of something like this, but at the same time it would be irresponsible of the insurance company, toward both their investors and their other customers, to simply pay out without question when someone else should be paying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

You're restricting speech whether or not you confine your censorship to only AI-generated images.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Correction: Fortunately, not unfortunately. A rule like that would prohibit any form of public / street photography, news videos, surveillance videos, family photos with random strangers in the background... it's not reasonable at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Since you don't understand, quotes denote emphasis or specificity, not emotion.

Actually quotes denote quotations. When used casually around an individual word or short phrase they generally indicate that the writer is emphasizing that these are someone else's words, and that the writer would have chosen a different description. As in: These people are described as "teens" but are probably not only/mostly teenagers. That may not be what you meant, but it's how that text will be read.

If you just want emphasis you might consider using bold or italics rather than quotes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I'd settle for just the limits, personally.

The part that makes me the most paranoid is the outbound data. They set every VM up with a 5 Gbps symmetric link, which is cool and all, but then you get charged based on how much data you send. When everything's working properly that's not an issue as the data size is predictable, but if something goes wrong you could end up with a huge bill before you even find out about the problem. My solution, for my own peace of mind, was to configure traffic shaping inside the VM to throttle the uplink to a more manageable speed and then set alarms which will automatically shut down the instance after observing sustained high traffic, either short-term or long-term. That's still reliant on correct configuration, however, and consumes a decent chunk of the free-tier alarms. I'd prefer to be able to set hard spending limits for specific services like CPU time and network traffic and not have to worry about accidentally running up a bill.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When it comes to their trademarks Valve can't take a fully hands-off approach without negative consequences. Either they explicitly endorse the use of the Portal name and other branding, in which case they're encouraging and aiding the project and could potentially be caught up in any lawsuit from Nintendo, or they say nothing and allow the trademark to lapse from non-enforcement, or they prohibit the project from using the Portal branding and enforce that prohibition with a lawsuit if needed. Unfortunately for the project, only one of these options retains their trademark and doesn't set them up for a fight with Nintendo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

You mean "3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files."? That section 3? I think they're using a bit more than just header files. Section 4 "Combined Works" is the one that applies here.

Also even if section 3 did apply they'd need to follow 3.b as well as 3.a and include the full text of both the GPL and the LGPL.

view more: ‹ prev next ›