|
In this lawsuit, Getty alleged that Stability AI went so far as to remove Getty’s copyright management information, falsify its own copyright management information, and infringe upon Getty’s “famous trademarks” by duplicating Getty’s watermark on some images.
Generating things that look like Getty's watermark in their output is a special kind of stupid. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Waaayyy back in the 80s I was working for a non-union print shop. One order we got was for some political dinner or similar. The client had us put a kind of small blurry oval in the corner which was intended to look a bit like a union logo. 
|
|
|
|
|
A look at what went into building the world's largest public code search index. Step 0: Find code that searches code
|
|
|
|
|
Step 1: throw away everything except what you find on Code Project. 
Seriously though, it's disturbing reading that article. When I search for code (like on StackOverflow or even my own code base) I'm parsing for meaning: does this code "mean" something similar to what I'm looking for?
It's weird (if I read the article correctly) that GitHub's code search has no concept of "meaning" - it's producing search results based strictly on n-grams.
It disturbs me that the implication is that "these things are like each other except..." can be determined by their combination of letters occurring in particular sequences rather than by an understanding of the meaning of those letters when put together as "code."
So what really is "meaningful?" Philosophers will have fun with this, but in a meaningless kind of way. 
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: When I search for code (like on StackOverflow or even my own code base) I'm parsing for meaning: does this code "mean" something similar to what I'm looking for?
If you need that level of search you need something like Google (which makes me wonder why embedded Bing wasn't an option for Gihub). SEO, more than anything else IMO, is why Stackoverflow has crushed the competition over the last decade or so.
What github's done is to make full text search scale to terabytes of code. A grep search across all the code they have would cost about 200k core seconds. 🤮 So while not Google, what they have created is still useful for some cases as well as being something that apparently none of the existing off the shelf text search tools could scale to either.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
Google is working on a competitor to OpenAI’s chatbot ChatGPT. The ‘experimental conversational AI service’ is called Bard and is only being tested by a limited group. Time to cast "Vicious mockery"
|
|
|
|
|
They are trying to seduce customers, as expected.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
HumTouch detects the current that runs from our fingertips to any partially conductive surface and locates where it was touched. Double-click on front door to open
|
|
|
|
|
Cool.
I wonder how long will it take to be rolled out and how long it will take after that to start getting abused
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
My touch sensor on my phone fails if my finger is a bit damp. On the flip side, is the damn cat going to start turning on the oven or opening the door?
|
|
|
|
|
It has been a long time since we have updated our strategy because our commitments to the languages that you rely on and how we think about them don’t change year to year. The maiden, the matron, and the crone
"Each .NET language is unique. C# is the most widely used language and the language most of .NET is written in. F# explores new language possibilities and the community provides a rich experience across platforms. We remain committed to Visual Basic and continue to invest in maintaining C# interop and Visual Studio features for folks that love Visual Basic or want a stable language." <-- As a (mostly) past VB dev, this makes me sad. But I guess as the wise man always said, "On Error Resume Next". :P
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting read. I especially liked the links. As a VB developer I read the VB strategy, which boils down to if it ain't broke don't fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "On Error Resume Next"
You undid 5 years of therapy with a single line of code. I was living so blissfully without the usual nightmares, PTSD, shivers, cold sweat, fits of coprolalia and insane screeching.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
A new report has uncovered the alarming figure that businesses are wasting every year on unused software licenses. I've got a license...a license to install
Double 0-sysadmin
|
|
|
|
|
Yep - part of it is because businesses have a hard time keeping track of non-physical items. A bigger part is the way software licensing is handled and the penalties for "undercounting" the needs. BSA (Business Software Alliance) is notorious for taking companies to court for an honest clearical mistake and requesting huge amounts of money, to the extent that BSA (Business Software Alliance) should be considered a racketeering organization.
|
|
|
|
|
Not just clerical errors. A major software vendor a previous employer used to use had a licensing system so badly designed that it only had 2 modes for confirming licenses, check with the server before every application start, or assign to a specific computer until their application on that computer explicitly released it. In the latter case if a computer died, or was wiped without the key being released there was no way to ever return it to the licensing server as available again meaning IT had to keep paying for those licenses indefinitely which made them feel really blue. (No there was no sane compromise like a 1 year key checkout or the like.)
The vendors support told IT when that happened to just edit the config files on the licensing server to increment the number of licenses the server thought it had by the number lost to dead systems. After a number of years of doing that, the vendors enforcement division audited my previous employer, sued it for doing what their own support said to do, and won a settlement which resulted in buying a much large number of licenses for a few years. That juiced the vendors lawyers wallets and the vendors for a few years; at the end of the period though my former employer chose to renew zero licenses with the vendor having decided the only rational move was to spend money migrating everything they had with the vendor to a competing platform.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
If the number of licenses managed by the licensing server is editable by the client, why bother having a licensing server in the first place? 
The licensing problem has been nicely solved by the DHCP protocol, among others. Why not adapt that code for distribution of licenses, rather than reinvent the wheel?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: If the number of licenses managed by the licensing server is editable by the client, why bother having a licensing server in the first place?
Did any part of my description make you think I considered it a sane setup?
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: The licensing problem has been nicely solved by the DHCP protocol, among others. Why not adapt that code for distribution of licenses, rather than reinvent the wheel?
How well does DHCP work to establish a license between a computer not ever connected to a network, and a licensing server? I don't know how old the offending implementation was, but the software itself pre-dates DHCP and probably needed to work for companies using sneakernet because they didn't want to deal with fiddly coax systems.
But the only rational reason I can think of for not supporting x month license checkouts, optionally with the time limited keys transferred via phone/paper is incompetence or possibly greed.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't criticising you, only the implementer of that miserable excuse for a licensing server.
I did not know that the licensing server that you described predated DHCP.
I didn't take into account systems that are never connected to the company network, but any such system would need a manual solution in any case. For systems connected to the company network, a DHCP-style protocol solves licensing problems very nicely:
- Server discovery
- Time-limited licenses (renewable)
- Permanent licenses
- License reservation
- Transferring additional configuration data with the license
- ...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly 40% of teams using open source lack the internal skills to test, use, or integrate that software. "It's a world of laughter, a world of tears"
Not going to get that out of my head all week now, thanks me.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Nearly 40% of teams using open source lack the internal skills to test, use, or integrate that software.
But someone in SO / some cool blog told them that it would work 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
A certain kind of software developer—or more often, businessperson— likes to talk about a hundred-year programming language, or even a hundred-year framework. That's a long compile time
|
|
|
|
|
The hundred-year programming language will be something the global AI creates to program us. And it'll be an injection, not bits and bytes.
|
|
|
|
|
And here we thought Java was a slow compile.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent, that was an interesting article. Most of the time I skim opinion pieces (since I'm an old fart they tend to piss me off), but this one I read in its entirety.
Nice job. Thank you.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
