on-demand pods that travel on existing abandoned railways.
They're reusing existing tracks.
I could see walking through a debug session document with a junior dev to guide them on how to debug classes of issues better. Or if they're running into a bug and ask for your help, you could write out the first few debugging steps and let them take it from there. That might be easier to understand than "I'd check service X and see if it's processing Y like it should or just passing it on to Z". Having a defined way to explain how to debug an issue could be useful
that looks like a console
Not just looks, but provides the UX of a console. So you buy it, plug it up, log in, and immediately start playing. Even consoles don't provide that streamlined UX anymore, but ppl want all the benefits console used to provide with all the benefits PC gaming provides now. But the key part is the PC benefits don't get in the way of the ease of it. You don't have to install or administer a linux distro, you don't have to twiddle settings for every game (unless you want to), etc
Relying on the competence of unaffiliated developers is not a good way to run a business.
This affects any site that's posted on the fediverse, including small personal sites. Some of these small sites are for people who didn't set the site up themselves and don't know how or can't block a user agent. Mastodon letting a bug like this languish when it affects the small independent parts of the web that mastodon is supposed to be in favor of is directly antithetical to its mission.
People have submitted various fixes but the lead developer blocks them. Expecting owners of small personal websites to pay to fix bugs of any random software that hits their site is ridiculous. This is mastodon's fault and they should fix it. As long as the web has been around, the expected behavior has been for a software team to prioritize bugs that affect other sites.
This issue has been noted since mastodon was initially release > 7 years ago. It has also been filed multiple times over the years, indicating that previous small "fixes" for it haven't fully fixed the issue.
What legislation like this would do is essentially let the biggest players pull the ladders up behind them
But you're claiming that there's already no ladder. Your previous paragraph was about how nobody but the big players can actually start from scratch.
All this aside from the conceptual flaws of such legislation. You'd be effectively outlawing people from analyzing data that's publicly available
How? This is a copyright suit. Like I said in my last comment, the gathering of the data isn't in contention. That's still perfectly legal and anyone can do it. The suit is about the use of that data in a paid product.
I'm not familiar with the exact amount of resources, but I know it takes a lot. My point was about what specifically is in contention here.
Also, you were the one pointing out that this case could entrench "giant fucking corporations" in the space. But if they're the only ones who can afford the resources to train them, then this case won't have an effect on that entrenchment
Harvesting the dataset isn't the problem. Using copyrighted work in a paid product is the problem. Individuals could still train their own models for personal use
yes exactly what sneezycat said. I was being sarcastic and pointing out that Manifest V3 was always a crackdown on ad blocking and nothing else.
It's funny how this comes after Chrome's switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can't block ads on the first-party site, they're going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.
My ponytail palm