I think that also causes issues for roaming profiles and folder redirection. If roaming is turned on then everything in the %appdata%\roaming folder is synced to a server. %AppData%\Local is not. So if your app is using %AppData%\Roaming for temporary data then you are causing a whole bunch on unnecessary IO. Same for using Documents since that if often synced.
Invidious still seems to work for VODs provided the instance doesn’t get restricted. Livestreams have been broken for ages though.
I don’t really see the advantage here besides orchestration tools unless the top secret cloud machines can still share it’s resources with public cloud to recoup costs?
So much better than my FunnelWAP. Best it can do is 100 KillerBytes. :(
Could it be a fear of a software patent relating to the design? Back in the day Apple had one for swipe to unlock that prompted Android to use different patterns.
Mentoning Iceweasel in 2024?! Where did you find this meme?! Debian stable?!
I have really mixed feelings about this. My stance is that I don’t you should need permission to train on somebody else’s work since that is far too restrictive on what people can do with the music (or anything else) they paid for. This assumes it was obtained fairly: buying the tracks of iTunes or similar and not torrenting them or dumping the library from a streaming service. Of course, this can change if a song it taken down from stores (you can’t buy it) or the price is so high that a normal person buying a small amount of songs could not afford them (say 50 USD a track). Same goes for non-commercial remixing and distribution. This is why I thinking judging these models and services on output is fairer: as long as you don’t reproduce the work you trained on I think that should be fine. Now this needs some exceptions: producing a summary, parody, heavily-changed version/sample (of these, I think this is the only one that is not protected already despite widespread use in music already).
So putting this all together: the AIs mentioned seem to have re-produced partial copies of some of their training data, but it required fairly tortured prompts (I think some even provided lyrics in the prompt to get there) to do so since there are protections in place to prevent 1:1 reproductions; in my experience Suno rejects requests that involve artist names and one of the examples puts spaces between the letters of “Mariah”. But the AIs did do it. I’m not sure what to do with this. There have been lawsuits over samples and melodies so this is at least even handed Human vs AI wise. I’ve seen some pretty egregious copies of melodies too outside remixed and bootlegs to so these protections aren’t useless. I don’t know if maybe more work can be done to essentially Content ID AI output first to try and reduce this in the future? That said, if you wanted to just avoid paying for a song there are much easier ways to do it than getting a commercial AI service to make a poor quality replica. The lawsuit has some merit in that the AI produced replicas it shouldn’t have, but much of this wreaks of the kind of overreach that drives people to torrents in the first place.
My guess is it’s to reduce scraping. A single bad actor can swap between IPs from VPN providers easily. They also seem to ban blocks of IPs since both my colocated server IP (had it since 2019) and PureVPN dedicated IP (recent) are blocked despite me being the only user. Forcing account creation adds an extra step and way they can block you.
The mayor’s office. It’s always in the mayor’s office.
Can you run a live CD on the machine? You mentioned Memtest but I’m wondering if an Ubuntu one would work.
Steam hardware survey but that will skew towards gamers. That said, it would be a good indicator on how compatible Wayland is.
If sellers can prove that they never touch a customers home address they’re less exposed to data breaches which might look good on for insurance companies.
Honestly, this sounds it something a shipping company could provide. When you go to use Paypal for example, you get redirected to their site, put in your details and they complete the transaction without the seller knowing your financial data. The same could be done with shipping.
This is the most infuriating part. The best solution to these issues is to remove the need to move in the first place, and WFH for the people that want it and who can do it removes a huge amount of traffic with comparably little cost (company laptop, a screen and maybe a desk and chair, many of which could just be taken from the office).
My preference would be for WHOIS data to be private unless the owner wants to reveal who they are. I do think it makes sense to require the owner to provide that information to the registrar so it can be obtained by the courts if needed.
I wish we had something like temporary/alias e-mail addresses for physical addresses. So you go to ship something, you provide a shipping alias which the shipping company then derives the true address from and ships the item. The moment the true address is revealed, the alias expires and can no longer be used. This way only the shipping company gets to know your real address and that is ideally discarded once the order has been completed. So forward shipping without the extra step.
They will not… combine us? Just forget about the whole “almost every community is on lemmy.ml and lemmy.world” thing. :P
The problem is if anti-cheat does not have full access but the cheat does, the cheat can just hide itself. Same for anti-virus vs viruses. It’s particularly nasty on free-to-play games where ban evading really just means you have to get a new e-mail. It’s the same reason why some anti-cheats block running games in VMs. Is it fool proof? Hell no! Does it deter anybody not willing to buy hardware to evade VM detection or run the cheat on completely separate hardware? Yes.
Personally, I’d prefer having a stake/reputation system where one can argue that they can be trusted with weaker anti-cheat because if you do detect cheating then I lose multiplayer/trading/cosmetics on the account I’ve spent $80 USD or more on. Effectively making the cost of cheating $80 minimum for each failed attempt. Haven’t spent $80 yet? Then use the aggressive anti-cheat.