Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45962056

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45384387

Points: 1

# Comments: 1

To me that and the new ToS add up, why else would they remove the FAQ entry.

Am looking forward to explore some of the alternatives. And no, I don't want a just a correcting/updating/informing follow-up blog post of how we the users got it all wrong. In fact, the current UPDATE makes it worse:

"UPDATE: We’ve seen a little confusion about the language regarding licenses, so we want to clear that up. We need a license to allow us to make some of the basic functionality of Firefox possible. Without it, we couldn’t use information typed into Firefox, for example. It does NOT give us ownership of your data or a right to use it for anything other than what is described in the Privacy Notice."

vs. the ToS:

"You give Mozilla all rights necessary to operate Firefox, including processing data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice, as well as acting on your behalf to help you navigate the internet. When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox."

No - you don't need a license for my input. Just pass the butter, it's not your job to "use that information" in any way, form or shape. How did you survive 26 years without any license to our input? What did legally change that would require that license? No one asked you to: "We use data to make Firefox functional and sustainable, improve your experience, and keep you safe." (from the blog). What does that even mean? If you have specific use-cases in mind state them clearly, instead of this overreaching general license, that may or may not be misused now or in future. As of this ToS you may very sell my data to AI companies to "help me navigate the internet" which is not even part of the Privacy Notice protection.

Reinstatement your privacy guarantees in the ToS and be transparent about explicit use-cases.

Meanwhile, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

Note the "you own" here that is in dispute with the Steam user agreement.

[1] https://support.sega.com/hc/en-gb/articles/29776767664145-SE...

Are there other recommended NFS server codebases?

I recommend reading the technical memo "Alpha and the History of Digital Compositing" by Alvy Ray Smith [1] to get a better intuition on the matter.

[1] http://alvyray.com/Memos/CG/Microsoft/7_alpha.pdf

   LAION datasets are simply indexes to the internet, i.e. lists of URLs to the original images together with the ALT texts found linked to those images. While we downloaded and calculated CLIP embeddings of the pictures to compute similarity scores between pictures and texts, we subsequently discarded all the photos. Any researcher using the datasets must reconstruct the images data by downloading the subset they are interested in. For this purpose, we suggest the img2dataset tool.

1. The LAION group committed possible copyright infringements and even left undeniable evidence that they did - on top of their written testimony (dumping the "stolen goods into the river" does not make the infringement undone, does it?)

2. Any model trained on the "linked" data may commit copyright infringement.

3. As consequence, you using generated images may be liable.

I always wonder how it possibly is legal at all - considering that as a human artist if I was to copy material and remix it it without proper permission would be liable (again depending on situation), but suddenly ML is around the corner and it's all great and now you can keep remixing the potential problematic output further - no questions asked!?

I guess there are no precedence cases but why should an automaton/software (and its creators) be judged differently to persons? I don't want to spoil the fun but what am I missing?

Also disappointed that this dataset did not make sure to only collect unproblematic content like Creative Commons that allows remixing. Would be a hell of a attribution list but definitely better than what is presented here.

EDIT: Formatting

EDIT2: I actually followed one of the projects mentioned not the linked repository. Clarified above.

Major third-party applications and libraries like Autodesk Maya, Pixar's Usd etc. make use of it.

My point being, it is not brand new technology just because it is now maintained by the Qt company. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if this industry is part of the reason why it gained official support.

The use in VFX also spawned a shim library called Qt.py that abstracts PySide, Pyside2, PyQt4 and PyQt5 away [2] - with certain limitations. Highly recommended in the transition phase from Qt4 to Qt5, or when you can't control the underlying Qt-Python library.

[1] http://vfxplatform.com/

[2] https://github.com/mottosso/Qt.py

Some of my personal highlights:

- clean syntax

- comptime (as explicit and simple as it should be)

- reflection

- minimal/no external dependencies

- single threaded mode (instead of taking cuts at runtime)

- concise and explicit error handling

- build-in build system

- amazing C interop

...

Good sample code can also be found in the standard library, and it has the benefit of being up to date with with language.

Thanks Andy!

Here some more details:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLJ_7lpBhys

For example you can do:

  const std = @import("std");
  
  fn Int(comptime value: i32) type {
      return struct {
          pub fn value() i32 {
              return value;
          }
      };
  }
  
  pub fn main() anyerror!void {
      const int3 = Int(3);
      const int4 = Int(4);
  
      std.debug.warn("Types: {} {}\n", @typeName(int3),   @typeName(int4));
      std.debug.warn("Sum: {}\n", int3.value() + int4.value());
  }

  Types: Int(3) Int(4)
  Sum: 7

[2] https://godbolt.org/z/eLWeU2

[1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Generic-Data-Struc...