- 0 Posts
- 25 Comments
Sound’s like you’re just being obstinate, then. It works, just not how you would prefer (well, I would also prefer that it didn’t give an error screen like that, but that’s besides the point). This is still early days of an open source project, and for that one should have a bit more understanding than for corporate products. A lot of other services also started out very unpolished and took time to get better.
The good thing is that you should be able to contribute and make it so that it doesn’t do that since you wrote you were a software developer for your whole career.
EDIT: nice angry downvote, Cosmic Cleric…
So you’re saying you did know that Lemmy has the thing where if you’re the first one to ask to get community data from another instance the link will give you an error and you must click it again (or reload) to get the instanced version of that community for your instance, and then say that it doesn’t work?
That doesn’t sound to me like you knew how Lemmy works. I can agree that it should be more hands-off for the user and the server should silently just do the thing to get the instanced community before sending data back to the client, but that’s a different argument.
Like Trainguyrom wrote, you’re probably the first user on your instance trying to access it. Try the link again. It’s the proper way to link to communities using Lemmy. Your link doesn’t give people on other instances the easy option to subscribe to the community.
EDIT: Interestingly enough it looks like someone went through the first page of my profile and downvoted each comment of mine. Hmmm, how very strange ;P
To be fair, it makes sense to liken the use of ad blockers with piracy. Consuming the content without paying for it either way, either without directly paying yourself or without indirectly paying through watching ads. Doesn’t change that ads on most parts of the internet are extremely invasive and far too much.
I feel fully entitled to protect myself from the ads because of the problems with them. But I don’t feel the need to lie to myself about the fact that I’m consuming content without paying for it in some way. Then again I support some content creators that I feel deserve it. Not sure if that helps offset it somewhat or not, but I don’t really care that much either.
I just prefer that people actually are precise in their language to make things as clear as possible. Saying “FAANG-like companies” is precise and correct, saying “FAANGs” is nonsensical. I would always use FAANG as that acronym, if you just want to mean “Big Tech companies” then just say that instead. It’s a lot more clear to a lot more people who don’t share your tribal-speak of your workplace. People federated here are from a lot more places and making it easier for everyone to know what you’re actually meaning should be a good thing.
Now you’re making a strawman. Other humans that are actually making art generally don’t fully copy a specific style, they draw inspiration from different sources and that amalgamation is their style.
Your comment reads as bad-faith to me. If it wasn’t meant as such you’re free to explain your stance properly instead of making strawman arguments.
Has he said that no other humans could be inspired by his art style? If no then he hasn’t expressed a want for monopoly rights to his art style. But he has expressed that he doesn’t want computers to generate art explicitly to mimic his art style.
Also don’t make claims that are totally disconnected from the argument discussed. It’s dishonest discourse and serves as a way to brush aside the other argument. You didn’t make any counterargument to my argument and the point of this chain which came from you saying that “Not every human activity deserves compensation” as a reply to someone saying “Greg wants to get paid, remove the threat of poverty from the loss of control and its [sic] a nonissue.”
Your reply to me was inane.
Strictly speaking it wouldn’t exactly be stealing, but I would still consider it as about equal to it, especially with regards to economic benefits. It may not be producing exact copies (which strictly speaking isn’t stealing, but is violating copyright) or actually stealing, but it’s exploiting the style that most people would assume mean that that specific artist made it and thus depriving that artist from benefiting from people wanting art from that artist/in that style.
Now, I’m not conflicted about people who have made millions off their art having people make imitations or copies, those people live more than comfortably enough. But in your example there are still other human artists benefiting, which is not the case for computationally generated works. It’s great for me to be able to have computers create art for a DnD campaign or something, but I still recognize that it’s making it harder for artists to earn a living from their skills. And to a certain degree it makes it so people who never would have had any such art now can. It’s in many ways like piracy with the same ethical framing. And as with piracy it may be that people that use AI to make them art become greater “consumers” of art made by humans as well, paying it forward. But it may also not work exactly that way.
But every human activity desirable to others deserve compensation. If you want someone to do something for you or make something for you or entertain you then it deserves compensation. The way ads on the internet have trained a lot of people to think that a lot of entertainment et cetera on the internet is free has been a negative for this. But at the same time that ad-supported model does make it more available to people that otherwise couldn’t afford the price of admission. It’s partly democratizing, but it’s also a scourge.
Also writing documentation in-code like JavaDoc or equivalents has always seemed great for me. Then you can have your toolchain generate the written documentation directly from that, and it can be updated easily based on what’s actually documented in the code (but that does require that people keep that updated)
It’s all ASCII art, but it runs like shit ;P More seriously; what constitutes beautiful code is very open to interpretation. Someone would say that a single line of list comprehension expression is beautiful while another would say the same thing expressed over several lines making the logic abundantly clear is beautiful.
I’m not attacking you, I’m attacking your words.
And the reason I said you were obstinate were because you were. You refused to accept that it works since it doesn’t do it in the way you want it to. And now you’re rage-downvoting. You should probably take a few minutes off.
EDIT: No, you didn’t state that it didn’t work after seven minutes and multiple routs of attempting to get the link to resolve. I see that you have edited that in later, in one of the later comments. It worked on the reload for me. And no, it’s not preventing input to improve a product, it’s asking you to be less absolutist in your comments. “It doesn’t work as well as it should” compared to your “it doesn’t work”. When it obviously does work, albeit could work better.
Edit: No ;P