All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, unless otherwise noted.
Signatures in Lemmy comments are spam.
Like putting your sexual kinks in a email signature
Touch grass. Really.
Being little spam doesn’t make it cool. Being little spam about your copyleft views doesn’t make it cool.
I would argue that ignorance tends to benefit corporations moreso than regular people without power. Take avail of any power that you have available to you, before its all gone.
Also, if you don’t defend others views, then one day, your views will not be defended.
Would be nice if it could be set as some kind of post / comment metadata, hidden from view but there in the code.
I’d love that, if it would be legally respected by corporations/scrapers. I even mention my license intention for my content in my bio here on Lemmy as well. It would save me allot of hassle arguing with others as well.
Until then, I have to embed the license in the content itself, especially while the new AI law is just starting to sort out these issues.
Like putting your sexual kinks in a email signature or telling everyone who didn’t ask that you’re vegan.
(quoting another person, not the one I’m directly replying to)
But honestly people, if you are being bothered by a simple link in a comment, that is allowed on Lemmy, then you really need to look within. If your client of choice is not displaying subscripted fonts correctly, and hence the text/link looks worse than it should, then you really need to speak with the devs of the client about that (as I mentioned in my ‘FAQ’ link, I’m using official Lemmy.World formatting). And if you don’t like seeing a license in general, then I can’t help you with that one, except for maybe giving some ‘touch grass’ advice (especially to the person I quoted above).
BOOO stupid long copyright signatures!
Some info about that …
Potential great news, but need to see more than just the CEO saying this.
Looking forward to the Gamers Nexus (or Hardware Umboxed, etc.) review on the chip/products.
From the article …
In a conference call, Ubisoft chief financial officer Frederick Duguet said the subsidiary’s board “will be controlled by Ubisoft, so Ubisoft will continue controlling and consolidating this entity.”
That question/point is answered in the link that I supplied above.
There also a comment from a mod in there that you should read.
Amongst other things, yes.
Activision User Research Union-CWA is the first group of video game user researchers to form a union
So what exactly about their users do they research?
Ahh, ok. Thanks. Was focusing on the body/paragraph of the text.
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀
I get the meme, but I don’t know how to apply it to this post.
Could someone elaborate?
Man, this current age of AI really sucks.
From the article …
GNOME sysadmin Bart Piotrowski shared on Mastodon that only about 3.2 percent of requests (2,690 out of 84,056) passed their challenge system, suggesting the vast majority of traffic was automated.
Great to hear! Way overdue. That industry really needs some of those protections.
From the article …
The launch will be formally announced at the 2025 Game Developer Conference in San Francisco, Calif., the world’s largest industry event for video game professionals, where workers will be joined by other CWA members to launch this powerful new organization.
From United States Copyright Office …
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.
The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
From the article …
This effectively means that, if you get banned by the Bluesky company, you’re out. Sure, you could still host your own Personal Data Server, wait for a non-existent independent Relay to fetch your data and interact with users of third-party Bluesky applications. But you won’t: you’re effectively at the mercy of the Bluesky company.
Point two, and more importantly: this approach provides an “exit strategy” in the event that Bluesky “goes evil”. Right now, that’s false: parts of the social network are still centralized and it’s impossible to avoid that. But even if we limit ourselves to PDSs and Relay, the current situation is that federation is only achievable in theory and no one has done it in practice yet.
From the article…
Other AI tools are really good at filling in the blanks in images, too, but Gemini Flash is particularly good at it
Other AI models can do this too, but you have to be a bit smarter about how you ask about it. As Verge highlights, Anthropic’s latest Claude model, and OpenAI’s GPT 4o will refuse to alter watermarked images. We can confirm that when you add copyright-protected images to Microsoft Office applications, its Copilot and Design tools will refuse to modify them directly.
I actually haven’t seen that version before; thanks for sharing!
This is the version I usually watch.
Feel free to block me.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0