@peregus @dl007

Wiki End-to-end encryption:
> The messages are encrypted by the sender but the third party does not have a means to decrypt them, and stores them encrypted. The recipients retrieve the encrypted data and decrypt it themselves. Because no third parties can decipher the data being communicated or stored, for example, companies that provide end-to-end encryption are unable to hand over texts of their customers’ messages to the authorities.

You don’t have to trust the server.

@birdcat they do this to all new accounts now, especially the mostly inactive ones. I think one way to get around the phone requirement is to use a proton email and setup 2FA immediately after creating the account. Then again, proton is flagging new accounts with signup confirmation emails too, so… yeah… leave github asap

@muntedcrocodile “Fair use” are exceptions from copyright licenses. I won’t pretend I know how this all works in detail, I just know this is the loophole they are using.

@muntedcrocodile @JRepin they say it’s fair use to take any copyrighted content for training and data-mining. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add6124

@Dymonika do --list-subs first, different videos offer different subs with different names

@ReakDuck I’m sure nvidia would like that, this “open source” label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.

@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by… linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of “open”? Quite strange narrow definition, don’t you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

@peregus yes, wrong. Being “open” doesn’t mean just “readable”. Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

@ReversalHatchery @velox_vulnus

It violates “freedom 0” of the Free Software Definition too, so no difference there. This limitation on use makes is non-open-source AND non-free-software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition

@Tick_Dracy not open-source

@iopq You asked about rent, not taxes. They actually avoid taxes in this way. And yes, using money they don’t physically have is exactly the source of all financial bubbles.

@iopq Not you… but yes it’s possible and generally it creates financial bubbles. Basically using your capital as collateral on your mortgage. An example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpV1FS-gRZw (4:50)

@some_guy Or they know very well, but can’t get a cut from it.

@SurpriZe It most definitely does show something in Vietnam. I know, because I added them to the map. Btw Grab is contributing to openstreetmaps and you can too. What did you find that was missing on the map? Your local cafe? Just put it there.

@Untold1707 As opposed to the hardware requirements of windows, who force you to buy a new computer for every new windows version just because?

@sag Jeeeeeesus now I’m scared to click it, what if it’s really in Typescript?

@ReakDuck Yup, and that’s a much better avenue to fight against the AI companies. Because fundamentally, this is almost impossible to avoid in the ML models. We should stop complaining about how they scraped copyrighted content, this complaint won’t succeed until that legal loophole is removed. But when they reproduce copyrighted content, that could be fatal. And this applies also to reproducing GPL code samples by copilot for example.

@dandi8 the license of Adobe Photoshop is not open-source because it specifically restricts reverse-engineering and modifications, and a lot of other things. The license of Mistral Nemo IS open-source, because it’s Apache2.0, you are free to use it, study it, redistribute it, … open-source doesn’t say anything about giving you all the tools to re-create it, because that would mean they would need to give you the GPU time. “Open-source” simply means something else than what you think.

@dandi8 @marvelous_coyote

> E.g, Mistral Nemo can’t be considered open source, because there is no Mistral Nemo without the training data set.

Right here - that’s your logical conflict. By downloading the model file, you can run it, thereby you can “have Mistral Nemo” even without having the training data, contradicting your statement -> your statement is invalid.

@dandi8 I’m not changing the definition of open-source. And I’m not saying models are magic. Please take your strawmen back. You are the one saying that dataset is source code, and you have no backing for this argument. I agree that dataset is the “source for training”, but that doesn’t make it “source code” as per the open-source licenses. And the tools are not the compiler. Just because something was created from something else, that doesn’t turn it into “source code”.