ekky

It appears, that with the increase in popularity of machine learning, the percentage of people who properly source and sanitize their training data has steeply decreased.

As you stated, a MLAI can only be as good as the data it was trained on, and is usually way worse. The popularity and application of MLAIs built with questionable practices scare me, though, at least their fuckups will keep me employed and likely more busy than ever.

You are correct! It sets HEAD to the first commit and then force pushes, deleting everything after HEAD.

Though, it only affects the currently selected branch.

like this?

# Let Git take a rest with some yummy awk chocolate logs with delicious nuts and seeds, and don't be pushy!
git reset --hard $(git log --reverse | sed -n 1p | awk -F "[ ]" '{print $2}') && git push -f

EDIT: Don't actually run it.

Or make a shortcut/link in the readme to the newest release of the most popular OS's.

A decent release page tends to contain all kinds of files for different OS, so 'regular' people who just want the .deb or .exe would likely become confused regardless.

Huh? Isn't this about Microsoft changing out a button with a well established use, in order to take advantage of muscle memory and the unobservant?

Don't think it's much to do with people opposing technological advancement, but rather with opposing another company wanting to making a fool of them.

Criminals will always find a way. Make a surveillance state, and they'll just break the law and use encrypted communication anyway. Might even hide data in other data if necessary.

That said, I'd wager that there are quite a few of those communities hidden in plain and unencrypted sight (discord, fediverse, etc.), but they just keep it small enough to not be found (The ones on discord did get found out eventually, but probably just moved platform). So the question would aris: why do these exist when we apparently have the resources to monitor EVERYONE given the chance?

Best you can do is to report communities and places where it runs rampant to the relevant authorities. That's much more efficient than the authorities having to make privacy-violating laws and crawl the net themselves.

Right, my bad. I thought you were explaining turbines in relation to the post, which would indeed have one attempt to run sand through it if not used with either liquid or steam.

I also wrote turbine and generator separately, as, as you stated, turbines and generators are not the same. I, in turn, hope I didn't give the impression that they were.

I fully agree about the system as a whole better being described as a battery, which usually includes generators of some sort to convert the stored energy back into electricity.

And yes, this is a rather precarious article, which also is why I wrote the half-question half-joke about unnecessary conversion steps using turbines.

And that's my confusion, why use a turbine (connected to a lift) to turn the heavy weight into a flow of steam or liquid, presumably to convert this flow to electricity using another turbine with a generator connected to it, instead of simply converting the heavy weight to electricity using a lift (or corkscrew) to turn the generator?

This is, of course, assuming that a turbine only is a turbine when it is driven by steam or liquid.

I guess the publishers of the article either got the definition wrong, or there's a less used definition of turbine which I am not aware of.

But isn't the definition of a turbine "a type of machine through which liquid or gas flows and turns a special wheel with blades in order to produce power" with the "power" (aka. rotational energy) going to a generator?

Where does the liquid or gas come from? Isn't this battery supposed to lift heavy, solid objects?

It doesn't outright state that it uses solid weights, but their illustration looks more like they'd use a lift with sand or weights, and not a turbine with liquid or steam:

Very interesting, and good to hear.

Though, I'm not sure why they would drive a turbine to drive a generator, instead of just driving the generator directly. Their illustration doesn't show any turbines either.

Haven't heard about that one, thank you for the heads-up.

First impressions:

• From top 10 artists i follow:
  • 5/10 have profile and uploaded at least one song on Bandcamp.
  • 3/10 have an account on Audius (possibility to donate).
  • 1/10 has uploaded at least one song on Audius.
• One MUST upload a profile picture to create an account.
  • About 1/3 of proposed artists during account creation have uploaded <5 songs, most seem to be remix and cover artists.
  • Didn't figure out how to search for artists during account creation, ended up choosing 2/3 artists I've never heard of.
• Not immediately apparent whether I can download bought music to a lossless format.
• Not sure how to buy album or individual song at first glance.
• LOTS of remixes and covers, not so much original songs (this is both good and bad).
• Nice that you can donate arbitrary amount without buying anything, in case you already got the music from... other places...
  • I didn't find anyplace where "$AUDIO" is explained, how much the artist receives, or what you receive if anything.

Less relevant observations:

• weird pause/play button, sometimes there's just a loading wheel spinning where it's supposed to be, not really functional.
• Slightly intrusive, had to disable some plugins (Javascript (obviously it's playing music) and fingerprinting (cloudflare?)) for the site to load. Not relevant to music, but just a general observation since we're in the piracy community.

Not much going on by now, but it probably just needs some time to grow and assimilate the likely soon-to-be-migrating Bandcamp user base. I'll keep an eye on it, and probably revisit it once more artists have migrated to it.

But we'll still need a proper place to support our favorite creators (where the artists actually receive some of the money). I wonder where people will migrate next.