- moritonalOh my, I loved that game! It's wild everyone's throwing shade at Helldivers whilst ignoring that it was an massive success because of how fun it is. I've said it before, Dev's are really bad at understanding the art of making Fun experiences.
- I am confident there is at least a few hospitals, gp offices or ticketing systems that interact directly or indirectly with Cloud flare. They've sold themselves as a major defence in security.
- This take is interesting given we're all here congratulating Jarred for seeing that there was no tool to solve x so made it, and is now enjoying a likely nice payday. Be the change you want to see in the world?
- Not knowing that much about apt, isn't _any_ package system vulnerable, and purely a question of what guards are in place and what rights are software given upon install?
- "Made with in Bulgaria by Azuro AI". What a wild moment we've reached, where we attribute authorship to an AI. We don't say music is written by GarageBand, or a cup is made by a form-press. We say a human made these things with those other things, but here we are, anthropomorphising sand.
- That's fairly unfair comparison. Did you include in the prompt a basic set of instructions about which way is "correct" and what to look for?
- These companies have simply too much influence on a global scale for the US to ever kneecap them. For every valid worry the West has of TikTok the exact same argument could be made of YouTube in reverse.
- I believe the case is that you're welcome to paint a picture perfectly copying Studio Ghibli, but you cannot sell it. You're welcome to even take the style and add enough personal creativity that it becomes a different work and sell that, but only if a random on the street doesn't look at it and say "wow, what Studio Ghibli film is that from?".
That's the problem here, there's no creative input apart from the prompt, so obviously the source is blatant (and often in the prompt).
- That's quite a bad faith take when you'd have seen claude is used at the very end after 10 months of another author's work with +62,847 lines.
- They're addictive, they're "popular" in the way slot machines are popular and require controls around. It's just so easy to watch another, which miiiight be amazing!
- That's a bit of a bad faith take. You were welcome to go spend the years(?) this chaps dedicated to putting together the research required to build this. If it works, let him enjoy the fruits of labour.
- This is the only video on their channel for a while that's disabled comments. There is an irony to saying they failed on communications, then disabling communications.
- It's more the "we have to move the meeting, but can't say when, please forget about this"
- Contextually it might be relevant that Ruby Central said they wanted to have a Zoom call today to explain everything, then cancelled it. This was their message.
"Hello Ruby Community, We recognize that our originally scheduled Q&A session overlaps with the observance of Rosh Hashanah and may not have been the best timing for many in our community. We sincerely apologize for the short notice of this change, especially since the session was set to take place tomorrow. In response to the feedback we’ve received, we’ve made the decision to postpone the session. A new date and time will be shared with you in the coming days. In the meantime, we invite you to watch this statement from our Executive Director. This update is intended to ensure everyone receives the same information and can view it at a time that works best for them."
- There's a Q&A to sign-up to next Tuesday here (https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/auIbrbS9RSS7Eukzj7b...).
- This person is a nice person, who's published a huge amount of positive work into the Ruby community. I do wish however they'd change their name from the perspective of a figurehead in the community, we have code referencing their repos and it's just awkward with interns to explain.
- A lot of the world doesn't have credit cards.
- Sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Github exists sure, but many open source projects have turned sour due to bad funding models. And OpenAi, isn't any of the things it says it is.
- That's rude. Yes, I've contributed to a few. However, here is a list of open-source software that've notoriously turned to unethical decisions when pressured into getting funding.
Audacity: Free until 2021 when they were bought and introduced telemetry.
Streamlabs: Open-source but tried to monetise and attack the OBS brand
Bitwarden forks: Various forks of open-source code that included monetisation
OpenOffice: Great desktop apps until bought by Oracle
CCleaner: "free" software that contained trojens.
HoverZoom: Chrome plugin sold by original dev, new update included spyware and ads.
As I said, I don't mind if the answer is "we are volunteers who love this", but I do ask that formal webpage presenting a product, that even has an FAQ page, explains it's funding model. Their github (https://github.com/CelestiaProject/Celestia) is much better at this.
- One thing I kind of always want to see when I find cool resources like this are "How are you funded?". Because if it's not clear then have to there's a high risk it's a rug-pull, virus or might one day be either. There's just too many secretive "Here's a super free perfect tool for you!" rug-pulls out there.
"We're funded by the goodness of a team of volunteers" is a great answer.