nymwit

joined 1 year ago
[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

Your cynicism is warranted but a big part of the advertised value is that their rcs implementation is end to end encrypted. Or they say it is, which presumably someone (not me!) would be able to verify.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago

It's weird because it is a standard but Google's implementation is not really the standard. For insurance, the standard does not use end to end encryption, Google does. Their implementation also runs over their own Jibe servers rather than carrier stuff. You gotta be a Google bestie with muscle like Samsung to get your rcs client on Android seems like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you have information on it supporting rcs? I don't see anything on the play store mentioning it. The first Google results I see say it doesn't. Seems like it would be a big deal because if they did and would be prominently displayed as I thought only Google messages and Samsung messages supported rcs.

https://chomp.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/1895488-rcs-implementation

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Come on, the same bread? That's crazy. How can that work?

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

For your used things for sure, the seller being reputable and the items being less common works well. Common items (like that knock off Switch dock above) that can be faked are tough because even if you buy product X from seller A, all product Xs can be in the same bin at the warehouse and Amazon just grabs one and ships. if Seller B is pushing a hard-to-distinguish knock off that Amazon believes is product X, then one might end up with that one and think seller A is to blame. That sort of mistake is definitely Amazon's fault in my view. You can end up with knock off stuff when buying from the official brand's store on Amazon for crying out loud.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So you're talking about placing app windows everywhere? Then you're limited to placing apple's available apps for the device everywhere around you aren't you? Which doesn't sound like what you want. I'm taking your 3 monitors comment to mean you're not running 3 monitors worth of mobile apps (because that would be wild if you were!). The 360 degree desktop setup here is going to be more like 360 degrees of ipad apps seems like. Maybe a windows remote desktop sort of app with multiple instances/windows all around you? Multiple safari instances all connected to some sort of web based remote desktop? I too want "spatial computing" to be more platform agnostic and want to be able to just paste applications or desktops on blank walls or floating in space.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

The stuff I've seen is saying it can only do one extra display from a mac. Is there another way? The high resolution capabilities also suggest one full quality display would max out wireless bandwidth.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

Cool. Thanks. I can see it now. No, not really, just the pieces over time I've read on what wins fair use protections when challenged often talk about the interpretations involved and that profit making was generally seen as detracting from gaining fair use protections when the extent of the transformative nature was in question.

This mentions it, but of course it isn't data on what has been granted protections vs. denials of protection. Harvard counsel primer on copyright and fair use

Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are made in connection with content that is sold, ad-supported, or profit-making. When the use of a work is commercial, the user must show a greater degree of transformation (see below) in order to establish that it is fair.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don't disagree with that statement. I'm having trouble seeing how that fits with what I said, though. Can you elaborate?

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

from your second link. I don't often see this brought up in discussions. The problem of models trained on copyrighted info is definitely different than what you do with that model/output from it. If you're making money from infringing, the fair use arguments are historically less successful. I have less of an issue with the general training of a model vs. commercial infringing use.

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

"Oh, my God, that's disgusting! Software that makes naked pics online? Where? Where did they post those?"

[–] nymwit@lemm.ee 19 points 10 months ago (8 children)

Can you run games like this in a virtual machine? Would that eliminate kernel level general invasiveness concerns because it's a...virtual kernel I guess? Does that virtualization require too much overhead to run demanding games?

view more: ‹ prev next ›