When I saw this, 2 questions came to mind: How come that this isn’t immediately reported? Why would anyone upload illegal material to a platform that tracks as thoroughly as Meta’s do?

The answer is:

All of those accounts followed the same visual pattern: blonde characters with voluptuous bodies and ample breasts, blue eyes, and childlike faces.

The 1 question that came to mind upon reading this is: What?

Yeah, that’s another one of the deliberately deceptive talking points being spread.

First of all, average people did this. The dataset Books3 was created by a jobless individual named Shawn Presser using one of Aaron’s scripts. Later he shared it with Meta. What makes the difference for Shawn is that the legal department of Meta stands between him and the copyright industry. As far as I can tell, Shawn is way more average than Aaron in that he doesn’t rub shoulders with the likes of Sam Altman.

It’s interesting how this talking point works. Someone shills for the copyright industry against the interests of the average person. And the justification is that the copyright industry persecuted Aaron Swartz. That doesn’t make sense, does it?

I don’t see how this fair use case is different from those in the past. There’s a tech company defending. Organizations like the EFF or the Internet Archive issue supporting statements.

I don’t see the hypocrisy. The content industry is suing tech companies now just like they have in the past, and just like they sue individuals now and in the past.

If I had to guess at the cause of the difference, I’d say that there is a lot of money being spent on social media PR. But perhaps it also is a result of the right-ward shift of society. I wonder how much that has to do with propaganda by the content industry.

For just a few minutes, while reading this, it felt like the good old times.

A dbzer0 user agitating against Fair Use? You a narc or something?

1. Get humped by a dog.
2. Whine like a bitch.

nes game programmers

Were these guys even Real Programmers?

Here’s a great talk by a guy who worked on a 1982 game for the Atari 2600, a game console first released in 1977. It’s a fascinating insight into the early evolution of computing. They didn’t work around limitations. They used a machine to do whatever it could.

If anyone has ever wondered by what standard C is a high-level language, this is for you. Or if you want to know how we ever could have developed something to connect the abstract logic of some algorithm with some glowing pixels on a screen.

Pitfall Classic Postmortem With David Crane Panel at GDC 2011 (Atari 2600)

There’s an ancient myth that a god created the first pair of tongs. Tongs need to be forged in a smithy. Obviously, you need tongs for that.

I guess most people don’t get how terrifyingly dystopian this is.

In the EU, there is a serious push to make this mandatory.

out-of-context quote about

That didn’t exactly look like animation. Looks like they trained an AI to control a humanoid figure in a virtual environment. It learned completely new and inhuman means of locomotion. Not very impressive from the technical angle, but the pitch about using it as a model for Zombie movement was clever.

You can use that for CG animation, of course. But those bi- and quadrupedal robots are also trained that way.

I feel the filmmakers manufactured some drama there. Knowing the real context of the quote makes it much more sensible.

It depends on where they did it, but probably yes. They had the right to do it in Japan, for example.

EU law requires them to moderate that sort of thing. Bit ironic to complain about that on an EU instance.

If creating text is like shooting bullets, we should require a license for text editors.