[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 3 months ago

Psh, I only use the Flushvalve Pro Vowel Pack. You can't beat them in terms of value for your money.

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 4 months ago

I've thought about a similar idea before in the more minor context of stuff like note-taking apps -- when you're taking notes in a paper notebook, you can take notes in whatever format you want, you can add little pictures or diagrams or whatever, arranged however you want. Heck, you can write sheet music notation. When you're taking notes in an app, you can basically just write paragraphs of text, or bullet points, and maybe add pictures in some limited predefined locations if you're lucky.

Obviously you get some advantages in exchange for the restrictive format (you can sync/back up things to the internet! you can search through your notes! etc) but it's by no means a strict upgrade, it's more of a tradeoff with advantages and disadvantages. I think we tend to frame technological solutions like this as though they were strict upgrades, and often we aren't so willing to look at what is being lost in the tradeoff.

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 4 months ago

God, that would be the dream, huh? Absolutely crossing my fingers it all shakes out this way.

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 5 months ago

posts you can hear

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Haha, sounds like we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

Copyright is much older than 1904, though! It dates back to the printing press, when it became necessary because the new technology made it possible to benefit off writers' work without compensating them, which made it hard to be a writer as a profession, even though we want people to be able to do that as a society. Hey, wait a minute...

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 6 months ago

Yeah but this presumes "the best way to beat 'em is to join 'em," right? Like, when all the operating systems or databases are proprietary, that's bad because those things are really useful and help you do things better and faster than you would otherwise.

But this argument applied here is like, oh no, what if large entertainment companies start making all their movies out of AI garbage, and everyone else can't do that because they can't get the content licensed? Well... what if they do? Does that mean they're going to be making stuff that's better? Wouldn't the best way to compete with that be not to use the technology because you'll get a higher-quality product? Or are we just giving up on the idea of producing good art at all and conceding that yes we actually only value cheapness and quantity?

Also, just on a personal level, for me as a J. Random Person who uploads creative work to the internet (some of which is in common crawl), but who doesn't work for a major entertainment corporation that has rights to my work, I would really prefer to have a way to say "sorry no, you can't use my stuff for this." I don't really find "well you see, we need to be able to compete with large entertainment companies in spam content generation, so we need to be able to use your uncompensated labor for our benefit without your permission and without crediting you" particularly compelling.

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 6 points 7 months ago

I beg your pardon?

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 7 months ago

Psst, check the usernames of the people in this thread!

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 9 months ago

it made so few changes to the source material it’s plagiarizing that a bunch of folks were able to find the original video clips

Wait, for real? I missed this, do you have a source? I want to hear more about this lol

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'm so sorry to inform you...

(10,959 words... I don't think I hate myself enough to read this one all the way through.)

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 11 months ago

I don't think they were defending ai necessarily, just saying they had objections to the specific technique used by these tools. I do think that not open-sourcing the thing is probably defensible given that it exists in an adversarial context, but the technical concerns are worth being aware of

[-] 200fifty@awful.systems 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

day 1

part 1

perl

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;

my $total = 0;

for my $line (<>) {
    my @nums = ($line =~ /\d/g);
    $total += $nums[0] * 10 + $nums[-1];
}

say $total;

part 2

perl

#!/usr/bin/env perl

use strict;
use warnings;
use v5.010;

my %nums = (one => 1, two => 2, three => 3, four => 4, five => 5, six => 6, seven => 7, eight => 8, nine => 9);
$nums{$_} = $_ for 1..9;

my $regex = join "|", keys %nums;

my $total = 0;

for my $line (<>) {
    $line =~ /($regex)/;
    my $first_num = $nums{$1};

    my $window = 1;
    my $sub = substr $line, -1;
    while ($sub !~ /($regex)/) {
        $window ++;
        $sub = substr $line, -$window;
    }

    $sub =~ /($regex)/;
    my $second_num = $nums{$1};

    $total += $first_num * 10 + $second_num;
}

say $total;

Part 2 gave me a surprising amount of trouble. I resolved it by looking at longer and longer substrings from the end of the line in order to find the very last word even if it overlapped, which you can't do with normal regex split. I doubt this is the most efficient possible solution.

Also Lemmy is eating my < characters inside code blocks, which seems wrong. Pretend the "&lt;>" part says "<>", lol

view more: ‹ prev next ›

200fifty

joined 2 years ago