Most teams in Europe either don't care, or can't use the badging data to affect performance because whatever local laws. I'm glad that for once they didn't fully enforce policies worldwide because some VP in the US is butthurt that their reports don't want to show up at the office.
Are there any examples of white hat hackers or similar fighting against stuff like this?
Too much cyber harm is done to benign businesses and people already, so I wonder if there's ever some "for a good cause".
Some sort of browser extension that make users aware of the dark patterns would be interesting. As I write this I remember reading about one that removes them from booking.com:
If I had the anger, starting such a project would be interesting. If they start applying counter-measures (like randomizing CSS classes, like Zuckbook does), one can smile in glee that they're spending money paying some developer to fight you.
I watched Office Space for the first time when I was a teenager many years ago. It's funny how much my perception of the movie changed and how much it resonates with my work now, specially since the last years. One difference is that I have 10 different managers, which makes me dissociate enough from work without the need of any hypnotist.
I discovered bouldering recently, which is the latest sport i found that feels more fun than a chore, so I find myself wanting to go more often than not.
Use your peers, friends and meetups to take any chance to try a new sport. I found that most sports I tried they are actually fun, and I had just ignored them.
How did you do this transition? How did you feel about your decision before your game was featured? I've been thinking about this path, but I feel too hesitant to jump.
I made the decision in early 2020, shortly the first C-19 lockdown happened in the United Kingdom. I had extra time every day given that my usual routines, childcare, etc were disrupted. And I had a Playdate developer preview unit. I switched from web and app development to purely games. I'd previously made games but only occasionally, as a hobby. Though I do live and breathe classic video games.
During lockdown I created many prototypes and a couple of them showed enough promise to become full games. That was the point I went all-in and I haven't looked back. It took time for the device to launch, but again largely coinciding with C-19 restrictions. Through itch and Playdate's Catalog store I make enough money for my modest way of life, so I'm happy. Life gets in the way occasionally, but I keep pushing forward.
The accolade was a complete surprise and very encouraging.
Thanks a lot for sharing. I love your approach for smaller games with faster cadence, and that it worked as full time job. I know the market is tough, but I hope you can make it work as long as you want.
There is a stupidity component here that i think got lost in the framing. The larger that becomes the more blame is functional to sustain your agency. You shouldnt be doing very stupid stuff, the only point at which that becomes a non issue is if you are unable to do so and require a legal guardian.
If you dont want one and keep your agency, be less dumb. This is a functional description not a moral argument. If somebody has to fix it for your, your say in the matter will drastically reduce.
I was 28 the first time a friend told me "I love you" in a pure friendship way (and while sober), and without being a part of a special situation. I've also done it afterwards, and because I had never told my friend i love them, it made the message even stronger.
I don’t feel comfortable telling people I love them outside of a serious relationship, so this always makes me feel a touch weird.
Like, my best friends, I love them in a sense I guess…but I wouldn’t say that. It just doesn’t feel natural to me. I’d characterize our relationship as close, and that I care about them a lot, but “love” isn’t something that comes to mind outside of my parents or someone I’ve been in a long term relationship with.
I’m not sure why. Maybe it has to do with being an only child. Maybe it has to do with all my grandparents dying when I was young, and not being that close with extended family, so there was never really anyone to love outside of my parents for the vast majority of my life prior to any long term relationships.
You need to understand that expressing love, and being in love are separate things. Saying "I love you" to one of your buddies doesn't mean you're lusting after them, just that you care about them in a deeper way. I still struggle with it, but I say "I love you, brutha!" or "love you, dude!"
I'm also an only child. I wasn't told "I love you", I was told "shut up". Being able to say "I love you" to somebody in the context we're discussing has been a game changer for me. It's just so freeing.
I mean I very much understand the difference, as I said in my original comment, I don’t just see love as an intimate thing with a partner, but as a way to express love to…well…loved ones. Like parents or family. I guess I just have for the vast majority of my life only associated with expressing love and caring via saying “love you” to my parents, that it feels as if it’s almost reserved for them. And then of course the “in love” meaning is reserved for a relationship.
Like, even when I’m around extended family that says love you, I just feel awkward and almost forced to respond with love you too back to them. Like I care for them of course…but I would never say I love you to one of them without them saying it to me first.
I have reframed how I interpret feeling awkward because of things like this.
Awkward is the feeling of trying something new (a form of play). Similar to giddiness.
Like trying out a new style of clothing, it's just the feeling of a new experience.
It's an intense sensation because we don't allow ourselves to feel as adults and assume it means I did something wrong/bad. No, it's just the experience of doing something different than you've always done. The context can tell you if it is problematic, but usually, it isn't something others notice.
Totally get where you're coming from with this, so if you're uncomfortable with that type of language in contexts where it doesn't make sense for you, don't feel pressured.
However, in my own life, I've found that there isn't some limited supply of love I have to share with others—in fact, it's been the opposite experience. The more freely I love those around me, the more fulfilling I find those relationships to be.
I am more reticent to use that language quite so flippantly with those I am actually romantically interested in though. When the potential for misunderstanding is there (i.e. romantic love vs platonic love or eros vs. philia vs. agape love to use koine greek terms), I tend to err on the side of caution so I don't accidentally communicate a level of depth that I don't intend.
give it time :-) love might be a foreign thing in friendships if they’re all based only in hobbies or if your circle’s changing every year. stick with anyone for a decade though: watch them go through breakups, career changes, and grow into themselves — watch everything around the two of you change even as that friendship persists — and only a true stoic will insist that there’s no love there.
i’m not sure extended family is the right analog for this love. as you hint, that family is kinda forced on you, and that implicit v.s. opt-in nature of family vs friendship has big implications for how open you can be with each other, for example. it’s really its own thing.
It's unfortunate that English doesn't have enough words for different kinds of love: lustful "love", romantic love, brotherly love, general love of humankind, appreciation for non-human things (e.g. I love these shoes!), different words for levels of love (e.g. between "like" and "love"), etc.
It sounds like you have normal and healthy relationships. I doubt they'll improve if you just start saying I Love You and I doubt they need to improve.
I recently remembered to tell my kids "I like hanging out with you" or "this was nice being with you today". I did it a while back when I had a realization that my parents didn't like spending time with me and I didn't want my kids to feel that. But then I forgot for a time...
Same. But specifically not initiating. I had a couple friends from way back who would say that and I would respond in kind. My change, later in life, was to be the first to say it - and with any good friend. For me the change was to be in a friend group of mostly women - who are generally more likely to share their feelings.
That's still $20k above what they have to pay for the right of usage of the library. What donation amount above would you consider reasonable? Or how would you budget Spotify's donation accross all open source projects that they use?
You can dual-license to avoid comercial exploitation. Why then set an expectation on how much should be donated for complete open source projects?
The idea is that people that can give would give, and those that can't won't. And who can give can also choose how much they think the project is valuable and how much maintenance it needs. Hopefully that would be covering the needs of the developers at a fair salary. It would be nice if open source projects were more transparent about this as well: "I need X/month to reach a fair salary and good maintenance, and could expand, hire devs and add functionality for Y/month." (milestones in patreon partially fulfill that role).
The problem is when there are others that rely on the work as well. How much should each give, such that the system would be fair? From a theoretical perspective, I think the money should be always coming from the source with the lowest marginal counterfactual return. That is, the organizations who have funds going to investors and other orgs with the lowest ROI should instead divert those funds to [something else], where [something else] is OSS in this case, until an equilibrium is reached and everywhere is operating at equal and optimal ROI. In practice things are not so easy. And this analysis (and financial analysis) tends to only value economic ROI, where we should be thinking of social ROI as well as environmental ROI.
But to give a rule of thumb, for now, I think it would be reasonable to pay
(a) if it is less than a % of the (internal) project cost: a % of the budget of the OSS project, depending on how valuable it is internally (say, 50% if their budget is low, or just 1% if their budget is high);
(b) a % of the (internal) project cost otherwise (e.g. at most 5% of project cost).
Ideally there would be some kind of system or framework to streamline this sort of evaluation and allocation to the devs.
I actually think a whole complementary economic system (i.e. enhancing capitalism or socialism) should be developed around this idea. We should be paying whomever is providing value to society, according to their needs to provide this value (and also give them a good life of course! -- and provide a reward/incentive to do valuable things, even ones that don't currently have an incentive). So some kind of organizations, that could be tied to companies or governments too, would be responsible for evaluating on a reasonably objective basis which projects need money and then allocating it (sort of as an outsourcing of the resource allocation job to specialized entities). But meanwhile individual and voluntary giving is basically that without outsourcing. I try to do this personally through Effective Altruism (which is essentially just that: give effectively) and giving what I can to Open Source and other impactful causes.
Why is it fair use if you train a model on copyrighted material and use its transformative output, despite going against the will of the author?
Can we all legally pirate educational books since it's for self training and producing transformative outputs? Can I consume all media (books, movies, music) the same way, and call it fair use? Also for software?
Content that hasn't been legally obtained wouldn't be legal to consume in any way. That's not what I meant, and I think that's a bit of a disingenuous interpretation of my comment.
The debate is about content that is generally legally obtained, but might come with certain restrictions. Where restrictions is a broad term and might also just come in the form of a copyleft license, eg. My main point was that in many situations, eg involving open source licenses, it's really not clear from the terms what the creator's intent regarding AI training was. And the broader question is whether training is fair use, or something else, maybe even a new legal concept that would have to be established. Or, what's the difference between art students going to the museum to be inspired, and Dall-E 'looking' at public domain images?
I acknowledge I stretched a bit your comment. I meant it as a way to try to find the line on what's OK with these new AIs rather than ill-intended O:)
Regarding your point, I wonder how different is it to break the "terms of use" for fair right, vs breaking the "terms of obtaining" alltogether. They both are about jumping over owner's will, who has the full rights of the work.
I very much look forward to see how the ethics and law around these issues evolve.
Earlier this year I was drunk at a bar, using the urinal while staring at the wall in front of me, which was full of stickers and scribbles. Then I saw this message, written by who knows who, and it really stuck with me.
