Marzepansion

As with all jokes it matters who the audience is. My friends can make off-colour jokes with me, I can reciprocate with off-jokes. But I would never do this with people not fully aware of my actual opinions. This also counts to clear misogynistic jokes.

My closest female friends they would be fine with it, they've known me for years, I've supported them in their lowest and they know I would never mean the a horrible thing I say. They'll happily reciprocate with some toxic male jokes, or some gay jokes. That said, even when I make them they are both clear intended to be jokes, but if they ever looked uncomfortable then it would be my guilt to bear, as at the end, as the audience they are meant to enjoy the joke, not be sad or hurt by it.

Making them to strangers is a big no-no, and if strangers are in the room with you at the time (like a party) you also have to "match the energy" of your friend. That means don't randomly do something misogynistic that they would understand to be a joke, but strangers would not. I think this is the hardest for most people as they don't consider that strangers witnessing could also be accidental audiences.

Besides some countries in the EU already have electronic ID identifiers. They can just contact them to verify I'm claiming who I am without this weird "yeah we need a picture of you, and look through your webcam". Banks don't need to do this to verify who I am, so I don't see why "X" needs this weird privacy invading process

Thankfully I don't care about X (lol), and with more and more of my industry moving to mastodon I'm quite happy that I need it less and less to keep up with papers and articles

"we purposefully make it terrible, because we know it's actually better" is near to conspiracy theory level thinking.

The internal models they are working on might be better, but they are definitely not making their actual product that's publicly available right now shittier. It's exactly the thing they released, and this is its current limitations.

This has always been the type of output it would give you, we even gave it a term really early on, hallucinations. The only thing that has changed is that the novelty has worn off so you are now paying a bit more attention to it, it's not a shittier product, you're just not enthralled by it anymore.

It's disingenuous to pass off ww2 as a current event though.

Because half-assing the implementation is the way to go

Let's deliver a broken version of accessibility in 10 minutes, that's much better.

No, simply adding "colour filters" isn't a fix either, and if that was the fix then a game wouldn't even need to do that, there are plenty of apps that can already do that, a game doesn't need to do anything for that (similar to how your screen warmth can change when it becomes night), reshade as an example of something that can do just that.

But thinking about the problem is ofcourse too hard, it's easier to whine about it and act like you know how simple it is. But when we implement accessibly we do think about it, because people with accessibility issues deserve to get something that actually helps rather than the "10 minute solution"

I enjoy my open source work, and if I had the means I would only do open source work, but I can't in today's society. Doesn't mean I don't believe all software should be free, but in how society today is I wouldn't be able to pay for the means to sustain myself and those close to me.

Donations really only go so far and some of the projects I've contributed to are too niche to survive on those :/

I always license my personal projects as free for whoever wants to use it free and wants to contribute back. It's never free for commercial entities though because screw them profiting off of my free labour.

With this, would you still think I'm lost? Or is there some nuance that could be applied if I responded with both wanting all software up be FOSS, but also that I need to have the means to support those around me.

"well we're really just evening the dead baby numbers" with the implication that that even remotely makes this justifiable.

No, I'll never support anyone who murders babies, be it whatever side or reason. You coming in here and defending baby murdering screams "both sideing" baby murdering as something that's even remotely defendable. It isn't, do some self reflection, same to whoever felt the need to upvote such messed up worldview.

For years I've been arguing for the plight of Palestinians, but to hear such disgusting arguments from someone who holds the same goal (freedom of oppression for Palestinians) and spouting that without shame is on par with those who deny the apartheid policies of Israel (I'd argue it's worse, but at this point it's the shit Olympics of opinion, and they're all on the podium).

likely due to OpenAI trying to optimise energy efficiency and adding filters to what they can say.

Which is different than

No companies are only just now realizing how powerful it is and are throttling the shit out of its capabilities to sell it to you later :)

One is a natural thing that can happen in software engineering, the other is malicious intent without facts. That's why I said it's near to conspiracy level thinking. That paper does not attribute this to some deeper cabal of AI companies colluding together to make a shittier product, but enough so that they all are equally more shitty (so none outcompete eachother unfairly), so they can sell the better version later (apparently this doesn't hurt their brand or credibility somehow?).

but let’s not pretend the publicly available models aren’t purposefully getting restricted either.

Sure, not all optimizations are without costs. Additionally you have to keep in mind that a lot of these companies are currently being kept afloat with VC funding. OpenAI isn't profitable right now (they lost 540 million last year), and if investments go in a downturn (like they have a little while ago in the tech industry), then they need to cut costs like any normal company. But it's magical thinking to make this malicious by default.

I participated in this, have to say it was fun and it's been a thing I've said for years could make (at least) linear algebra lessons more interesting to young people. Shaders are the epitome of "imagery through math", and if something like this was included in my linear algebra classes I would have paid much more interest in school.

Funny now that this is my day job. I'm definitely looking forward to the video by IQ that is being made about this event.

To explain some of the error pixels: the way you got a pixel on the board was by elaborately writing down all operations in details (yes this included even simply multiplications), the goal wasn't if the pixel was correct or not, and depending on the location of your pixel the calculation could be a bit more complex, as long as you had written down your steps to get the result as detailed as possible.

More than likely simple mistakes were made in some of these people's calculations that made them take a wrong branch when dealing with conditionals. Hopefully the postmortem video will shed some light on these.

I'm a game dev, so my perspective on this can be biased, but my honest opinion is if games are too expensive for you to buy, go pirate them. That's exactly the situation places like Argentina are in now. Let us westerners subsidize the cost of development until your country gets back on track and you are able to buy more than just staple goods (40% of Argentina is considered living in poverty or worse).

This goes for people in poverty anywhere in the world tbh even in the West. Piracy doesn't really move the needle much (but do try to support indie devs if you can)

Pretty standard really. You don't want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.

You typically have to sign these types of CLA's whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I've had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I've done it for various other open source projects as well.

Still that shouldn't concern users/gamedevs as they don't contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse

It's using unity game engine. I'm a graphics programmer in the industry and at my current and last workplace I made tech for games studios (i.e. I dealt with performance of easily 100 games a year at one point). Unity by far was default the worst to deal with due to the limited tools to fix issues that were inherint to the engine. Note don't take this as me saying unity is a bad engine, it's just that it isn't a performant one. Its focus is elsewhere (accessibility and ease of development, things it excels at).

So yes, you can definitely assume that, in fact I'd assume one core for the simulation unless they wrote an entire new architecture to replace unity's functionality (you'd still be locked to single thread sync points, but that's manageable). It's a hassle most don't deal with as it's a lot of work to struggle against writing code like unity wants you to write it.

I worked in a studio that exactly did that a decade ago, and it was painful and frankly a huge upfront dev cost that takes a long time to pay off.

You raised an issue that the other bulletpoint has the solution for, I really don't see how these are "key differences".

In Rust there always only one owner while in C++ you can leak ownership if you are using shared_ptr.

That's what unique_ptr would be for. If you don't want to leak ownership, unique pointer is exactly what you are looking for.

In Rust you can borrow references you do not own safely and in C++ there is no gurantee a unique_ptr can be shared safely.

Well yeah, because that's what shared_ptr is for. If you need to borrow references, then it's a shared lifetime. If the code doesn't participate in lifetime, then ofcourse you can pass a reference safely even to whatever a unique_ptr points to.

The last bulletpoint, sure that's a key difference, but it's partially incorrect. I deal with performance (as well as write Rust code professionally), this set of optimizations isn't so impactful in an average large codebase. There's no magical optimization that can be done to improve how fast objects get destroyed, but what you can optimize is aliasing issues, which languages like C++ and C have issues with (which is why vendor specific keywords like __restrict exists). This can have profound impact in very small segments of your codebase, though the average programmer is rarely ever going to run into that case.

It's perhaps better that patch notes are written by programmers and not linguists. Incorrectly using a (harmless) phrase is perfectly okay. It doesn't detract from the important bits of the announcement at all.

edit: damn, that's a big reaction for an accidental mistake someone wrote in a patch notes highlight article.

In general, you should have enough tolerance to host discussions and debates for people you disagree with

You weren't looking for a discussion, you were looking to make a statement. You weren't there to listen, just to preach. If my opinion was "slavery was good, so I don't see why you're complaining about it" I'd be shown the door in plenty of good communities due to the inflammatory nature of my discourse. It would also be clear I'm not there to discuss anything.

I've also shown you it's not an opinion rooted in science as they do classify more sexes, so in the end it's a social opinion you hold, and tbh that's not worth a lot (and definitely not worthy of the discussion you crave).

I therefore believe that the whole idea of non-binary is pushed primarily as a grift by the medical industry to sell “treatments” for gender dysphoria

You know Pakistan & India also recognizes a third gender? The Hijra. I guess the medical community has a long history of this grift all the way into antiquity such as Ancient Egypt (they wrote and described their notion of a third gender) or even somewhat recently the Mughal Empire (15th century). But yes it's totally a grift.

Your lack of knowledge isn't mine to fix though. You've set your opinion to be something malicious because you want it to be, but even a quick glance at a wiki page would tell you the much longer history.

The rest of your comment veers off into randomness mentioning religion and how you talk about human nature as if you're an expert, and I think we've spoken enough already. I'm not going down a long windy irrelevant discussion on the matter.

You're free to have the last word, I will be going further with my day, my best to you.

He's making a video as a post mortem to this experiment, so it might still be released. But I can see why it would be better not to share them (aside from privacy/legal concerns as there was no such release agreement), some of the contributors used their real names, I may be one of them. It could be a bit shameful to see this attached to your real name. They might have submitted their initial draft and then, due to circumstances, could not update the results in the several hour window that was afforded to you.

Luckily my pixels look correct though.

If you license your software in a way that has exceptions for certain groups, that license is not a libre software license. If I’m reading this correctly, you just have proprietary software. Corporations cannot be treated differently than individuals, it violates the GPLv3 and other free software licenses recognized by the FSF.

Dual license exists and is fully GPLv3 complaint. I don't see why I'd allow corporations who will profit of my work, to enjoy the fruits of free labour, but you are free (hehe) to have a differing opinion there. Also, most of my licenses are AGPLv3 due to the networked capabilities of that license.

Also shame on you for saying “free labour.” Creating free software is not tied to “getting free labour,” your labour was not gratis.

In what way was it not free? If I contributed to the GNU project, and I received nothing in return, what part of that isn't free? I provided my labour for free, and signed the rights away to the license of the FOSS project.

If the only way to obtain a good standard of living is to restrict people’s freedom and hoard software, than the society itself is broken and unsustainable. But of course, your use of “society” is a way (intentionally or not) to deflect from the ongoing robbery of computer science leadered by the most parastic and compulsive hoarders and control freaks in your country.

This is something I, as an individual, cannot change. I can push societal change, but for now, we both (you as well) have to sell labour to survive. I assume you have a means of income yourself, so I assume you are breaking your principle as well.

A mega millionaire gives the same “feed my kids” that you do.

I am not a mega millionaire.. I'm someone who owns no house, but I do have a family, a mother with a disability that cannot work, a boyfriend who is unemployed, a pet who has to have surgery, and so I do need to provide for them. If that makes me your enemy, then so is every factory worker out there.

Yes, you are lost. You’ve admitted to creating nonfree software and parrot talking points used to derail the discussion to your own emotions

If needing to support my family means I'm lost, then I will wander forever. I can only guess you have enough money to not need to worry about the realities of surviving in a capitalist society as I there's no alternative to you owning the means to get online on an electronic device, without the means to pay for that.

So do you work, or are you rich? Because that's the only possibility here if you practice what you preach and aren't "selling your programming skills". I'd guess you have to be rich then.

Well that's just painful to read. I wonder how political a conference could be named before he thinks even showing up is no longer the neutrality he thinks he is showing. "BasedCon" is by its definition a political name, and simply showing up shows you are at least receptive to the message, or willing to ignore it.

I do get that he might be wanting to disassociate the Con from the craft, but if I take it further, would he go to PolPotCon? I doubt he would, even if the interest aligned.

Ah exactly the type of game we're all waiting for, now my data can partially live on another server somewhere else instead of just the dev's servers, revolutionairy /s

If you read the linked post there you'll see that it's about devs discussing Serde's actions on the GH issue. How are they not related?

Nope, the announcement trailer was made in Unreal, they've confirmed it's in Unity.

Here's their official twitter account confirming that: https://twitter.com/colossalorder/status/1633060715132080130

She could've fallen off the stairs or had a heart attack, it doesn't absolve Hamas of their generous contribution to the death of this person.

Absolving and defending kidnappers is such a disgusting take

Ah, I see now what you meant. I thought you were being sarcastic due to the italics, my bad!

No you are ridiculous for thinking what you wrote isn't somehow interpretable as that.

You write:

no need to justify this, the scale of dead kids is still tipped HEAVILY towards Palestinians

95% of all victims of this conflicts are palestinians. lets stop pretending the numbers are similar.

But somehow this isn't a justification on literal dead children. Yeah sure buddy. Could've lead with "well there's no excuse, but there have been far more dead Palestinian children in this conflict", instead you wrote that drivel. That's why I'm saying you're both side-ing literal baby murder.

What the hell are you talking about good and evil for?

Have I so far defended Israel's response? No, and I don't actually agree with their response either. The proper approach wasn't to escalate and as they are in the position of power they have that choice. That still doesn't mean I'll go in threads defending actions that have lead to baby murdering, something so vile and heartless that only a blind ideologue could ever defend it or use it as a "but they were worse" argument.

Blind ideologues might hate it, but sometimes the two sides are shit, and in the case of IDF and Hamas, they both are, and Palestinians are in between. That still doesn't give anyone the right to kill children.