https://github.com/KerfuffleV2 — various random open source projects.

  • 1 Post
  • 179 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle






  • From dealing with their support in the past and stuff they’ve accommodated, I wouldn’t be surprised if you could just ask them to do it for a small amount like that. If you do a web search, you can also find a lot of information and people claiming it’s possible to do stuff like transfer it to a Paypal account, etc.

    I haven’t tried to do that personally, so maybe it really just isn’t possible. It’s still only something that will affect someone that’s never going to spend money at Amazon again, right? If I’m going to spend $5.99 at some point, it’s effectively the same as a cash refund for me. If I’m going to spend $10.99 at some point it’s almost the same as getting double the refund, since I would have spent cash instead in those cases.


  • Do we need to be more efficient?

    I mean, it’s usually a beneficial thing. Using less resources (including land) to produce the same amount of food is probably going to mean less environmental damage. In the case of switching to vat grown meat it also means not torturing billions of animals every year.

    We have the resources to feed everyone on Earth and have leftovers

    Sure. No one starves because the food just isn’t on this planet, they starve because the people who have it won’t give it to them. That said, we’re also not using resources very sustainably so saying we produce enough food currently isn’t the same as saying we can continue this way.

    We could also increase efficiency even further by reducing meat/dairy consumption.

    I don’t eat any animal products so you can probably guess this is something I’m strongly in favor of as well!

    Anyway, I was just responding to what I quoted not specifically arguing for 3d-printed foods. Depending on how it’s implemented, it may or may not be better environmentally than the status quo




  • Easily hour+ long headache on your first time.

    Whenever I read this kind of thing (and people seem to say it pretty often), it seems really weird to me. Same goes for complaining about distro installers. An hour of possible headache/irritation and then you use the machine for years. Obviously it would be better if stuff was easy, but an hour just seems insignificant in the scheme of things. I really just don’t understand seeing it as an actual roadblock.

    (Of course, there are other situations where it could matter like if you had to install/maintain 20 machines, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.)






  • The timing and similarity highly suggests this is a problem with how almost all software has implemented the webp standard in its image processing software.

    Did you read the article or the post? The point was that both places where the vulnerability was found probably used libwepb. So it’s not that there’s something inherently vulnerable in handling webp, just that they both used the same library which had a vulnerability. (Presumably the article was a little vague about the Apple side because the source wasn’t open/available.)

    given that the programs processing images often have escalated privileges.

    What? That sounds like a really strange thing to say. I guess one could argue it’s technically true because browsers can be considered “a program that processes images” and a browser component can end up in stuff with escalated privileges. That’s kind of a special case though and in general there’s no reason for the vast majority of programs that process images to have special privileges.





  • As a general statement: No, I am not.

    You didn’t qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn’t, it actually does.

    You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.

    Not really. It isn’t that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they’d like to use but also not want to pay that artist’s fees so they train an AI on the artist’s portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.

    This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

    So this isn’t true. What you said isn’t accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn’t work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn’t, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call “stealing” or infringing on the artist’s rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.

    Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.

    Yes, that’s kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That’s why the company in OP took pains to say they weren’t doing that.