deleted by creator

deleted by creator

These are the uBlock rules used to block the headers from youtube channels. The ‘about’ tab is intentionally left unfiltered for the cases I actually want to see that information.

https://pastebin.com/raw/MEUPPs0Z

edit: had to put the code on pastebin since the code markdown doesn’t seem to work here.

Which one?

Adblockers can do more than just block ads, they also allow you to customize websites. As a simple example you can remove the annoying headers on youtube channels that take half the screen:

It’s also great for news sites. I have a filter to remove articles on topics I don’t care about. I also have rules to prevent these sites from automatically reloading after certain amount of time, something that I find very annoying.

There are two Linux paradigms that I consider stupid. One is the use of centralized software repositories managed by the distro instead of individual developer maintained installers. The other one is file system case sensibility. They already admitted defeat on the first one with the rise of containerised applications. I wonder how much longer they’ll keep the charade on the second one.

Everything is a neo-nazi hand sign.

I was playing a Souls game while checking some info from Fandom on my phone. Unbeknownst to me the site was eating all my mobile data because of a live twitch stream playing on a muted and invisible player. Fuck those fuckers.

Bill Maher and Drew Barrymore knew. They didn’t mind going back to work if the negotiations stalled for a long time but when they discovered the strike was close to ending they realized it was stupid to take such a PR hit just to save a few days of shooting.

I’m curious. How do you train such AI without being raided by the authorities?

Bud light wasn’t canceled, it was boycotted.

In some cases it took people 2 to 4 days to release a working version without Denuvo

2 to 4 days? How about months and counting? Not to mention many Denuvo protected games are only playable through Switch emulation, something that might end soon.

I’d be surprised if there WASN’T reliable data that confirms a significant loss in sales if they launched without Denuvo.

Here’s a video of someone actually building something like that to play a chess match.

It works for me.

I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.

It seems that’s not the case, no matter how much effort or time you expend on the prompts. This is from the Copyright Office:

The Office does not question Ms. Kashtanova’s contention that she expended significant time and effort working with Midjourney. But that effort does not make her the “author” of Midjourney images under copyright law. Courts have rejected the argument that “sweat of the brow” can be a basis for copyright protection in otherwise unprotectable material.18 The Office “will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work” because they “have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.”

Here’s another key factor:

Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them. The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.

This only applies to an image generated with AI prompts that isn’t significantly altered by an artist.

Here’s the Copyright Office’s response for anyone interested.

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.

Remember, AI generated work is in the public domain.

That hasn’t been determined yet. A human prompt used by the AI to generate content might be enough to grant copyright. This case is about autonomous AI generated content.

If you generate something with AI and claim you created it yourself you can easily be asked to reproduce a similar works again.

Asked by whom exactly? The Copyright Office? Are they going to ask for prove from every artist that requests registration for a work?

If you say you did use AI you should be able to show how much effort you are putting into creating the images

Or you can lie in your request. From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

“As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office accepts the facts stated in the registration materials, unless they are contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the Office’s records.”