that also includes Tim Berners-Lee

You mean that traitorous piece of shit who sold us out to DRM on the Web?

What about the sound though?

This cat is thoroughly out of the bag. People have been building computer vision powered automatic sentry guns that shoot paint balls or nerf darts or spray water for a while now.

See, for example, this video from 2012, which was probably about one of the first ones.

In comparison, here’s a new video from a few weeks ago as part of “YouTube Maker Secret Santa” where the guy built a very good working Nerf replica of a TF2 level 2 sentry gun. He didn’t even bother talking much about the motion tracking part because it was already a solved problem (see timestamp 17:50), so instead he spent the video talking about the ammo chain design and the aesthetics (and playing with the Secret Santa gift he had received from another maker).

That’s the state of automatic AI turrets in 2025: trivial enough to omit discussion of the tracking tech and cheap enough to build to fit in a Secret Santa gift budget.

That’s a spicy KÖTTBULLAR!

Become self-employed, I guess?

Again, it all depends on intent. You can try to just “happen” to “inadvertently” create a benchy lookalike, but your success depends on whether you can bullshit the judge into believing that, not the actual degree of similarity.

I still don’t get why Linux Foundation helped Google out of that.

I could be wrong, but I think that (at least to some extent) the Linux Foundation exists to be the more corporate-friendly face of Free Software Open Source, as a reaction against/in opposition to the hard-line “end-user freedom” stance taken by GNU/the FSF. If that’s accurate, it doesn’t surprise me that it would take a soft position regarding Google’s monopolistic practices. Especially since Google is a gold member of it.

1st thing i would do would be call the radio station–they might have a digital copy already

It hasn’t existed since 2003 (there’s still a station on that frequency, but it’s changed ownership and programming a couple of times). Maybe they still have the old master copies anyway? Or I suppose I could try to track down the DJs who produced it…

The library and state archives ideas are good suggestions; I’ll look into them.

last resort would be a recording studio, which might cost lots of money per hour, and it’ll have to be converted in real time–play the tape from start to finish, while the computer ‘records’ it. if the studio don’t have a top of the line gourmet tape deck, then they can take just take the output of your own player and plug it into protools

I mean, if using my own player might be considered “good enough,” couldn’t I just hook my Walkman’s headphone output to the line in or mic input on my computer and do it myself? In addition to the audio built into the motherboard, I also have a relatively-cheap USB audio interface, which I guess isn’t as good as it could be (it’s 48KHz, not 192KHz) but would still be better than nothing.

The main thing is I’m not sure how I need to set the volume on the Walkman (it also apparently has a feature called “AVLS” that might or might not be relevant) or if I need an amplifier or something. I also don’t know if I need to do anything special with ALSA/JACK/PulseAudio and know basically nothing about how to use Ardour or XMMS (I’m aware they exist and are the right type of software, but that’s about it).

i was a recording engineer during the time analog recording was just starting to get surpassed by digital

I’ve got a cassette of some parody songs made by a local radio station that’s basically going to become lost media if I don’t digitize it myself. The only cassette players I currently own are a Walkman and one of those retro-style-but-not-old CD/cassette/record combo players. Do you have any advice on what I should do to get the best quality transfer that I can?

That’s not how copyright works. Copyright is a legal concept, not a technological or physical one. If the intent was to be inspired by a 3DBenchy and it’s not “transformative” (as in, into a different medium from a 3D model entirely), it’s infringing. It doesn’t matter how many vertices in the mesh are different if the person making it started with a 3DBenchy in mind.

At best, if your intent is to mock the original, you try to argue that it’s parody and thus fair use, but it would still very definitely be a derivative work regardless. Any further downstream modifications would thus also be assumed to be infringing the copyright of the original unless they were (successfully) claimed to be parody too.

I’m glad someone is sane ITT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY9z2b85qcE

To be clear, I think it ought to be the case that at least “copyleft” GPL code can’t be used to train an LLM without requiring that all output of the LLM become GPL (which, if said GPL training data were mixed with proprietary training data, would likely make the model legally unusable in total). AFAIK it’s way too soon for there to be a precedent-setting court ruling about it, though.

In particular…

I thought Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. would serve as the basis there

…I don’t see how this has any relevancy at all, since the whole purpose of an LLM is to make new – arguably derivative – works on an industrial scale, not just single copies for personal use.

From what I’ve read about AMOC, that histogram ought to be a lot lower (probably about the same as the Greenland Ice Sheet one, especially since Greenland melting is what causes the AMOC collapse).

Training LLMs on copyright material isn’t illegal to begin with

Reproducing identifiable chunks of copyrighted content in the LLM’s output is copyright infringement, though, and that’s what training on copyrighted material leads to. Of course, that’s the other end of the process and it’s a tort, not a crime, so yeah, you make a good point that the company’s legal calculus could be different.

Okay, let’s be clear about this: staying on Facebook isn’t “humility.” It’s selfishly selling out to simp for the fucking enemy.

Shutting Off X’s Algorithm

Hey EU, that’s not how any of this works. First of all, you do not have any control over that – even if you demand it be done, there’s no way to verify compliance. Second, there’s always an “algorithm.” There can’t not be an “algorithm;” that would mean it would display nothing at all. Even the choice to just display tweets chronologically is still a choice, and implemented in the form of an “algorithm.”

What you do have the power to do – and what you should do – is simply just straight-up block X entirely.

That would never happen; the yellow filter would clash with the neon.

I say no!

Microsoft has been infamous for stack-ranking for decades now.