Show newer
ceoln boosted

@Mastodon We want to build a network where people can discuss issues around their bodily anatomy , discussions some red states would criminalize

ceoln boosted

Racists quoting Martin Luther King Jr. to make racist points is one of this era's most sickening features...

Silly action movie 

A good "so terrible it was fun" I'd say, that one. Whereas The League one was more "kind of fun, but trying to be good, so the flaws were distracting".

Show thread
ceoln boosted

Silly action movie 

"SCANNING FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS....

"NUMBER OF WEAPONS FOUND...

"MANY!"

Okay, so that was funny.

(Also I don't understand why her clothes keep changing color, and why the camera thinks it's important. Well, I know, because it's very bad.)

Show thread
ceoln boosted

Heading back to wintry Europe but with wonderful memories of in . Can’t speak highly enough - stunning landscapes, warm and friendly people.

ceoln boosted


Three cats standing on a robot vacuum cleaner, holding earth hemishpere on top of their backs, medieval engraving, ancient map

Оно меня не понимает :blobsad:

Silly action movie 

On the other hand, the NEXT movie I'm apparently watching is "Ultraviolet", which is a whole different category of inexpressibly bad.

I mean, the last scene had the bad guys in a LITERAL circular firing squad.

Show thread
ceoln boosted

When I decided to jump into the fediverse with both feet, I signed up for a BookWyrm account at @bookrastinating. When I tried to import my history/library, there were two big issues.

The first was timing. I joined and started an import at about the same time many, many, many other people did, and the server promptly fell over. The owner of Bookrastinating was helpful and friendly and eventually the queue started moving again, so that's not an issue anymore.

The second was not actually a problem with BookWyrm at all, but with GoodReads! It turns out that a bunch of books I'd previously tagged as read on GoodRead were no longer the books they had been. No offense to Marc Blake, author of “How to Be a Sitcom Writer: Secrets from the Inside,” but I’ve never read that book. When I “shelved” it on January 9, 2017, I assigned it “baroque, cycle, fiction, hardback, series, read,” so it seems very clear that what I actually shelved was a book by Neal Stephenson, and checking now shows that GoodReads only knows I've read the second book in the tagged "baroque cycle" series, but it has lost the first and third.

I'm not sure when the GoodReads database was corrupted, and in a review of my Reading Challenge book lists for 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, and 2017, everything seems probably-correct. But my 2017 Reading Challenge also does not include the book I mentioned above, the book that caught my eye as clearly-incorrect.

When I look at books *shelved* in 2017, I see many that are definitely not right, although they don't have "read" dates. I'm sure <cite>After the Martian Apocalypse: Extraterrestrial Artifacts and the Case for Mars Exploration</cite> is a perfectly fine book, but it definitely wasn't what I tagged with "fiction paperback series dragon king trilogy" on January 9, 2017. <cite>Love on the Dotted Line</cite> could be a fantastic romance novel, but it's not what I tagged "paperback anthology science fiction" on January 9, 2017. A dual-language collection of Italian women's poetry is definitely not what I tagged as a volume of the "Writers of the Future" science fiction anthology series. And so on. The ones I notice most easily are the titles I would never read, but the date January 9, 2017, stands out. Sorting by date added, I can see that some of the books added on that date seem correct. I know the books, and the tags match the books. Most do not.

I'm sure there's some irony in an import failure on the fediverse alerting me to serious corruption on Amazon-owned GoodReads, and the result stopping me from actually migrating.

I clearly cannot trust GoodReads, as they've broken the first and second rules of a database: they've lost data, and represented data falsely to belong to me when it doesn't. I'm not sure which of those is the first rule and which is the second, but both seem bad.

I also cannot import my entire library from GoodReads into BookWyrm, because I don't want to start with bad data. I think it's time to let most of the past go, and create a cleaned-up import file with just my reading history from 2017 onward.

Good thing I have the day off tomorrow!

ceoln boosted
ceoln boosted

This is fascinating - Tapeworms eaten by Acorn #ants secrete more insulin that seems to aid in the ants #longevity. They want the ants to live as long as possible, to increase their chances of being eaten by a #woodpecker 😳.
quantamagazine.org/ants-live-1

ceoln boosted

Social threat modeling and quote boosts on Mastodon

How to improve tools for preventing, and defending against, harassment and abuse?

privacy.thenexus.today/social-

#QuoteBoost #QuoteTweet #MissedQuoteBoost

@cliffjones
Another interesting-looking case was this one (sorry for bird link):

twitter.com/rainisto/status/15

but as with Kashtanova, the copyright holder seems to have become quiet.

Must be the Cabal. :D

@carlmalamud

What precisely are you thinking of there? Aren't government edicts still not copyrightable? Copyright is allowed on works that significantly decorate or enhance or package them, but...?

@cliffjones @mmasnick

@brouhaha

Thaler has been for years claiming that its his AIs that are being creative, and trying and failing to get copyrights and patents and things on that basis.

He always fails, but it's NOT because anyone has ever said "using a AI tool doesn't involve creativity"; they've only ever said that any creativity involved is (more or less by definition) on the part of the human, not the software.

(All the articles, like this one, saying that in the Thaler cases the PTO found that "art made with an AI can't be copyrighted", are just wrong; that issue has never been decided afaik.)

The obvious argument is that, just like with Photoshop or anything else, when a human uses a piece of software to create a work, the human is the author of the work. This Kashtanova thing MAY be them tentatively ruling otherwise, but since we know about it only like third hand, it's really hard to say.

If anyone has an actual statement of any kind from the PTO on this, I'd love to see it...

@cliffjones

@cliffjones
There is, sadly, almost zero information here (and it gives the usual misinterpretation of Thaler).

It's very odd that we have as far as I can tell zero actual statements from the copyright office; just rather vague (and sometimes later taken down) statements from the copyright holders involved.

All this article says is that "in a post on her Facebook page. Kashtanova revealed that..." some stuff coming out of a game of telephone from a string of non-lawyers.

Really frustrating!

ceoln boosted

Silly action movie 

"Shouldn't we have more than like three guards between the entrance and your inner sanctum, Chief Bad Guy, sir?"

"It's okay, if anything happens, we'll just have Bob run in and yell 'Intruders!'."

Show thread
Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.