Seems like it, lol. Her loss. Actual Mahjong is a good time. :D

Not FOSS, but Mahjong Soul is pretty well-made.

SantaBlack lmao

Is that why he’s impossible to see?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility

Accessibility is the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities.

Assistive technology is the creation of a new device that assists a person in completing a task that would otherwise be impossible. Some examples include new computer software programs like screen readers, and inventions such as assistive listening devices, including hearing aids, and traffic lights with a standard color code that enables colorblind individuals to understand the correct signal.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2020/09/08/could-elon-musks-neuralink-be-a-game-changer-for-people-with-disabilities

Disabled people are likely to have had their attention piqued by Musk reiterating that, in the first instance, Neuralink would be looking to “solve important brain and spine problems.”

In fact, throughout the presentation, several chronic and life-limiting conditions were cited as being potentially treatable by Neuralink — ranging from blindness, spinal cord injuries, memory loss, brain damage and even depression.

The company’s first round of clinical trials will focus on patients with spinal cord injuries.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/musks-neuralink-start-human-trials-brain-implant-2023-09-19/

…Neuralink said, adding that its initial goal is to enable people to control a computer cursor or keyboard using their thoughts alone.

ETA:

I have no interest in defending the muskrat or his dystopian vision for this technology. I’m just a developer who gives half a shit about making accessible software, so I want people to know what that means.

I hadn’t really formed an opinion on this article specifically, but… If I had spinal damage? I might consider signing up for the monkey-killer chip too. A shot at getting my body back might be too enticing to resist.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

The “Liquid Tree” is Very Cool Actually

Unless you invert it

So judges are saying:

If you trained a model on a single copyrighted work, then that would be a copyright violation because it would inevitably produce output similar to that single work.

But if you train it on hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works, that’s no longer a copyright violation, because output won’t closely match any single work.

How is something a crime if you do it once, but not if you do it a million times?

It reminds me of the scheme from Office Space: https://youtu.be/yZjCQ3T5yXo

There will never be anything more illustrative of the limits of human intellect than the fact that a master logician famously argued that:

I ought to do XYZ because there may be an omnipotent being that rewards doing XYZ

…and did not immediately think:

I ought not to do XYZ because there may be an omnipotent being that punishes doing XYZ

Seize the means of computation.

Gandhi on Zionism:

My sympathies are all with the Jews.

…

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice.

…

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

Edit: This was 1938, btw. 10 years before the Nakba.

Always blew my mind at CompUSA that they had lil security boxes around the $30 games, but $200 (or however much it was) Red Hat was just chillin.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/76908/trouble-star-trek-transporters

If the transporter takes all the atoms that make up a person, encodes them, beams them somewhere else, and then reassembles them, how can we know that the resulting “person” is the same person who went in?

Someone’s been listening to Ken Ashcorp? https://youtu.be/kFZKgf5WG0g

And Starship Troopers got people really excited about space fascism.

Yeah, this is pretty much my take.

The web sites that are interested in this tool never wanted to be actual web sites. They wanted to be closed client-server systems with proprietary, opaque protocols… HTTP was just a convenient implementation to leverage.

What WEI does is basically allow all of these wanna-be walled gardens to become actual walled gardens.

They never wanted to be interoperable in the first place, so what are we losing? Good riddance.

Maybe with this in place, we’ll be able to start rebuilding the interoperable web that we had before VC money took it over.

We just need a compelling business model for it. “Free” ad-supported is toxic for open discourse, and now it’s functionally deprecated on the open web. I think that’s a good thing, but good changes are not necessarily easy to endure.

I’m not sure how we’ll do it. Attention tokens and all that crypto stuff seems like garbage, but having a thousand different subscriptions to get past paywalls is not great either.

Thank you for contacting technical support.

It appears you’re having a problem with HUMOR.EXE.

You seem to have enabled LIP (Laughter Integrity Protection) Service.

You should know that LIP Service does not apply to built-in protocols such as TAB/00, and will cause compatibility issues in certain deployment environments such as EARTH.ENV.

To solve your particular issue, you’ll want to navigate to the /ASS directory, right-click on HEAD.ZIP and select “Extract”.

Capitalism is a tool. Being pro-capitalism is like being pro-circular saw.

What you see as “anti-capitalism” is people pointing out that using one tool for everything is, at best, inefficient… and, at worst, dangerous.

Insisting that everything must be quantifiable and min/maxed according to market demands is nonsense, and hurts people.

There are things we value which are not profitable. There are things that are profitable but not valuable.

ChatGPT is an incompetent, unethical mess, and the rare occasions where its stochastic output aligns with reality, it is abusing the generosity of people who expected to be licensing their work to fellow human creatives and not the inanimate avatar of cognitive oblivion.

Am I the only one that gets a nails-on-chalkboard feeling from “how it looks like”?

It’s either “what it looks like”, or “how it looks”. Not some amalgamation of both.