Seems like more of an animation showcase than entertainment. The animation is well done though, especially the facial expressions and hand movements. It's weird to hear his voice when he speaks, like a bad impersonation of his later voice.
Copyright protection should last only as long as necessary to achieve a reasonable compromise between protecting and rewarding the author for his intellectual labour and safeguarding the public interest in the dissemination of culture and knowledge
This is more about reminding people that the default state of things is public domain. Copyright isn't a natural right, it's a government-granted artificial monopoly for the purpose of incentivizing new works, just as you want to do. It's good that it helps provide you with an income, but shouldn't be confused with a natural right.
For example, Sonny Bono wanted copyright to last forever:
Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:
Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... As you know, there is also [then-MPAA president] Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.
This is pushing back against that way of thinking, and clarifying what the default is.
I think he drew an eighth note just because that helps get the joke across easier than a whole note. It's more instantly recognizable as music, even if you've never learned how to read it.
One crucial thing is that the popular conception of grief as 5 sequential stages is completely wrong. Those are 5 possible options out of more that you'll likely bounce between over time. Grief is also not improved by a hangover, so it's best to avoid alcohol and the like.
Why would the man about to be sworn in as mayor of America’s largest city elevate a woke, anti-Israel YouTube children’s entertainer to his inner circle, appointing her as a prime member of his inaugural committee?
Simple: Because Mamdani himself is a child.
I thought it was parody at first, but it seems to be real.
This is used for namespacing and to ensure forward compatibility (since no elements will be added to HTML, SVG, or MathML with hyphen-containing local names going forward).
Since the web has some messy history there's a few tag names already with hyphens in the names, hence the "going forward". There's some more interesting tidbits over in the HN comments, like the CSS :defined selector, which targets standard elements, and custom elements that have been registered in JS with CustomElementRegistry.define()
I pull the trivia automatically from https://peanuts.fandom.com/wiki/December_1951_comic_strips since it's generally useful, but yeah there's some weirdly unnecessary tidbits in there. I noticed that with the Garfield wiki as well, which has trivia like "The start of Christmas comics" or "The last comic strip of 1980".
An imsorryviolet community would be great! Looks like there's a few pieces people have already done in that vein:
As much as possible, I don't use proprietary software. I bought a Pixel phone specifically so that I could run GrapheneOS (which has been great), and the only non-FOSS stuff I use is basically web tools for communication, like Slack/Discord/etc. As much as web-as-a-platform sucks (and it has many shortcomings), at least things tend to just work now on Linux, one way or another.
I think the article's point is still valid in regards to "AI datacenter megaprojects". Is this new and unique for AI, or simply a continuation of the huge build-out for other demands, like video streaming? Is it "unfair" to target AI for that when video streaming apparently dwarfs AI in terms of energy usage?
I think AI replacing workers is great (in an ideal world). I'm coming at it from the Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism angle, and saying "AI bad because it's replacing workers" seems wrong to me, vs "Privatization of AI and economic inequality are bad". The genie isn't going back into the bottle, so let's take on the fight that can be won.
Yeah, it's similar to nuclear energy as well. For both, I'm not so much "pro-X" so much as I'm "anti-anti-X". Renewable energy seems to have finally outpaced other options, but we also wasted decades fighting against people that meant well but helped destroy the environment. Likewise, simply rejecting AI completely just leaves more opportunity for unethical people just trying to make a buck.
In an ideal world, we'd work together as a species to distill our collective knowledge into a reliable source of truth, much like the promise of Wikipedia. We'd use this new technology to make that accessible to everyone, even if they lack context to understand some of the deeper subjects. It would be a rising tide that lifted everyone. It doesn't have to be controlled by tech bros, and IMO the lack of a popular utopian vision coming from leftist ideals has left a hole eagerly taken over by people trying to make a buck. Projects like AI Horde are much better than saying "AI bad, end of story" IMO.
It's hard for me to really gauge the laziness aspect. Yeah, it encourages laziness in some ways, but it doesn't have to be on the things that matter. If it takes care of grunt work like "generate a react app skeleton that does X", that could be viewed as laziness, but it could also be viewed as the invention of the tractor eliminating a lot of unnecessary farm work or something. In other words, if you just want to "do the thing", and it helps you get to that goal faster, is that lazy?
Regarding your edit, makes sense to take it with a grain of salt, but broken clocks and all that. The numbers are more important, and they seem reasonable. Taking a look at this article (written before the current crop of LLMs took off, but also just a random link I found so take it also with a grain of salt), we see a huge increase in data center workloads before any current AI workloads:
I think the article's general point is likely valid, and that it's a valid criticism to say "If you criticize AI for energy usage but not video streaming then you're unfairly targeting AI".
Before I start work on any cartoon, I usually have a fairly good idea what the caption is going to say.
In this instance, and in the last few moments of my deadline, I uncharacteristically made a sweeping change of the entire thing. Originally, the caption read, "Look, but don't touch―or the mother will throw it out."
I still have no idea what came over me that made me suddenly see it another way, but when the cartoon was published it seemed to generate a favorable response from more than a few people. And I always found that to be sort of interesting. Does this mean we all have a latent desire to stuff worms into a baby―or is it just me?
How concerned should you be about spending 0.8 Wh? 0.8 Wh is enough to: [..] Drive a sedan at a consistent speed for 4 feet
Or this bit?
If your friend were about to drive their personal largest ever in history cruise ship solo for 60 miles, but decided to walk 1 mile to the dock instead of driving because they were “concerned about the climate impact of driving” how seriously would you take them?
I don't think it's saying “if you are talking to a chatbot you arent doing other things like driving!”, I think the point is that you probably do lots of other things every day that dwarf the energy consumption you could use on LLMs, and you don't avoid doing those because of their energy usage. For example, nobody* is complaining about the energy usage of Netflix or Youtube, but they dwarf chatgpt:
*I'm sure it's not actually nobody, but I'd bet it rounds to 0, and either way is far less than the number of people complaining about AI energy usage.
Seems like more of an animation showcase than entertainment. The animation is well done though, especially the facial expressions and hand movements. It's weird to hear his voice when he speaks, like a bad impersonation of his later voice.