• 2 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 19th, 2024

help-circle

  • 80 steps too far down the capitalism ladder

    This is the result of capitalism - corporations (aka the rich selfish assholes running them) will always attempt to do horrible things to earn more money, so long as they can get away with it, and only perhaps pay relatively small fines. The people who did this face no jailtime, face no real consequences - this is what unregulated capitalism brings. Corporations should not have rights or protect the people who run them - the people who run them need to face prison and personal consequences. (edited for spelling and missing word)


  • That leads us to John Gabrield’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

    I don’t have comments on the rest of your post, but I absolutely hate how that cartoon has been used by people to justify that they are otherwise “good” people who are simply assholes on the internet.

    The rebuttal is this: This person, in real life, chose to go on the internet and be a “total fuckwad”. It’s not that adding anonymity changed something about them, they were the fuckwads to begin with, but with a much lower chance of having to be held accountable, they are free to express it.










  • A lot of people associated with Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) have major objections to GitHub. Here’s one summary: https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/

    But the TLDR; version is roughly:

    • Your source hosted on GitHub is being used to train AI, and you are possibly giving up rights to algorithms you may have written (IANAL, and AI training is a fuzzy topic at the moment)
    • GitHub itself is proprietary, closed-source software, while they claim to be pro-FOSS. Aside from not being in the spirit of things, closed-source means you also don’t know what happens with your code/data once up upload it.
    • Microsoft has a history of being anti-FOSS, while some people will say it’s been changing, I think many are still rightfully concerned what their future decisions regarding GitHub might be, especially if they are a near-monopoly.

    Alternative do exist, and some like codeberg.org are specifically open sourced, and pro-open source, so many people are pushing to move hosting away from GitHub and onto other options.






  • You don’t do what Google seems to have done - inject diversity artificially into prompts.

    You solve this by training the AI on actual, accurate, diverse data for the given prompt. For example, for “american woman” you definitely could find plenty of pictures of American women from all sorts of racial backgrounds, and use that to train the AI. For “german 1943 soldier” the accurate historical images are obviously far less likely to contain racially diverse people in them.

    If Google has indeed already done that, and then still had to artificially force racial diversity, then their AI training model is bad and unable to handle that a single input can match to different images, instead of the most prominent or average of its training set.


  • The specific repo in question had (and still has) a USAGE section.

    And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it’s not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?

    Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn’t want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them “SMELLY NERDS”.

    I’m astounded that there’s still people defending this guy like that’s a totally normal thing to do.

    If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.


  • The point, which you missed, is that going to github, a source code hosting service, to look for downloading executables for your specific platform - is like going to a farmer’s market to try and get a ready made meal. You’re at the wrong place, and it’s not meant for you if that’s what you’re looking for.

    Github is fairly user friendly, but it’s users are developers.



  • random9@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldScript kiddies
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I mean, you’re partially right yeah - for bigger projects with more devs, they often DO provide windows/linux/etc executables, and that does save a ton of hours.

    But for smaller projects with one main dev, it’s a lot to expect one person to make releases for all platforms. Maybe for the platform they develop for at best - though if that’s not your (not you personally, just general) favorite platform, you’d still be out of luck.

    Again to repeat: it’s a moot point in the case of this context since there was NO EXECUTABLE to provide - it was a python script. So arguing this is completely unapplicable in this case! The original poster was just being an entitled jerk who didn’t bother reading anything and resorted to name-calling.


  • random9@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldScript kiddies
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    For what architecture? You use windows, what about Linux? What about MacOS? Should the author spend their time making an executable for each platform? Or only the platforms that are most popular? (Edit: also, I’m not going to touch the fact that for complex programs there are third party dependencies which have license restrictions to be bundled together into an exe or provided into a zip as a dll, which is extra work for the dev to do just to make an exe)

    Secondly, as I pointed out in my above comment which you seemed to have missed:

    Some code, as is literally the case for the original source does NOT run via a standalone executable, so there is NO exe to upload. It is run via third party interpreters, in this case the Python interpreter.

    There’s a section about how to run the code in the original post for example here https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock?tab=readme-ov-file#usage - it requires the source code (because its not compiled, it’s interpreted) and installing python - which then is used via python3 sherlock to run the tool. Again, in cases like this there is literally no executable to upload. There may be some roundabout ways to upload an executable that packages, but that’s way beyond just providing the source to be run via python.

    Also to edit to say this: Regardless of how “easy” you may think uploading an exe for something might be, calling the people developing that code “stupid smelly nerds” as the original poster did (not you) is completely disrespectful, arrogant and entitled, and if someone demanded that I upload an exe to one of my repos like that, I would completely ignore their request.