Admin on the slrpnk.net Lemmy instance.
He/Him or what ever you feel like.
XMPP: povoq@slrpnk.net
Lemmy alt: @kris@feddit.org
Avatar is an image of a baby octopus.
If I remember correctly, Apple makes it really hard to bridge iMessage and they implemented some sort of hardware check and even disallowed older versions of MacOS or so. As usual, they really like to lock people into their ecosystem.
P.S.: something is wrong with that link you shared.
Yeah, there is some issue on our end, but sadly it isn’t clear what might be causing it.
Seems not too bad. It seems to boot with mainline Linux (or at least Ubuntu ISOs) and the vendor releases patches for recent kernel versions, which is much better than most ARM SoCs.
Cool, let us know how it goes and maybe also see if the power consumption has improved with more recent kernel versions.
Seems indeed relatively good value for money, but how is the mainline Linux kernel support for that SoC?
Edit: also in the early reviews people found some strangely high idle power consumption, which really isn’t good for a home server.
Lemmy.world sends your post to slrpnk.net if someone there is subscribed to this community and thus I can see it in my client just as any other local post.
Pretty sure you misremember, as Lemmy.cafe also requires registration to be used. There are some independant frontends (web-clients) that can be used with different Lemmy instances, but for password security reasons I strongly recommend to only use the ones hosted by the instance you have your account on, because otherwise you are basically sharing your password with whoever runs that frontend.
That is not my understanding of the timeline. Yes, they asked their members to vote on it a month ago. But these votes take time, and once the vote was settled and the ToS adapted they immediatly put up the banner.
It is not my argument, but the official stance of the US copyright office and some other similar bodies around the world.
But yes, it poses some interesting philosophical questions, but those are not of very high relevance to copyright law.
Our https://old.slrpnk.net/ should currently work without any javascript, but we might have to add additional anti-scraper protection in the future if Iocaine becomes ineffective against an aggressive scraper.
Basically the transformative abilities of LLMs can make copyright obsolete.
That is wishful thinking. Copyright was originally designed to protect human creativity, and a lot of the laws and precedence cases involve human effort specifically to distinguish between plagiats and original works.
As long as courts don’t start to rule otherwise, LLM generated code is not considered to be copyrightable itself, thus it can not be original work as defined under copyright laws. This in turn lowers the threashold for such code to be considered a derivative regardless of if there is a clear pathway from one to the other. All it takes is someone to claim that it is derivative, and the burden of proof that it isn’t largly falls onto the person accused. And if the code is functionally identical and with no significant human involvement, that is very hard to proove.
IANAL of course.
Copyright can also apply to code rewritten in another programming language, if the overall structure and functionality is identical. Although tbh, that is a bit of a grey area, and in previous rulings there is some precedence that if the “translation” involves significant human effort then it can be considered to be sufficiently transformative. But promting an LLM to “rewrite this in Go” very likely doesn’t pass that relatively high bar.
The study you linked is interesting (and likely underestimates the issue*), but it also shows that it is possible to automate detection of copyright infringing code in LLM output, and even just 2% is more than enough to open a case for malicious litigation. Large companies can write that off as the cost of doing business, but for small individual open-source developers this is a significant risk.
‘*’ Because human programmers usually reuse existing licensed code as libraries, while LLMs are prone to rewrite them, and as explained above a rewrite is at an elevated risk of being considered copyright infringing.
And what do you think “concerns over licensing” means? 🤦
You realized that those parts refer to two different things? But since you clearly live in a world entirely detached from reality I don’t think this makes sense to discuss further.
Yes, that’s why they put up a big banner informing everyone after they decided on the ToS change.
I really get the feeling there are a bunch of people here commenting that have never even visited Codeberg even once 🤦
It is not. There are plenty of studies showing that LLMs spit out code that is near verbatim to existing code and LLM companies even go so far as to instruct their models to not also add the corresponding license/copyright headers with that code.
There are probably law firms analysing common code patterns LLMs often use right now and are approaching copyright holders of similar enough code to buy up the rights. It might not all stand up in court, but it will be enough to scare some people into settling for fee that guarantees a profit for these law firms. This is a tried and true method for an entire industry of law firms.
At this point I must assume you are trolling 🤦
It is a totally different thing to have the occasional copyright take down request from a legitimate copyright holder, or hosting code that is in the majority likely copyright infringing and just waiting for someone to start targeting for mass copyright litigation.
No, these malicious law firms intentionally go after the small fish, who are much more likely to be intimidated and give in to a settlement payment before it even reaches the courts.
And for Codeberg it makes absolutly sense to minimize the issue for them now before it becomes an even bigger issue.
We have that too. Maybe the new fork that we are using is doing that slightly different from other versions and that somehow breaks in your browser?