heyyyouu

I was in an experimental trial for a one-shot medicine and I had an had a fairly severe side effect.

If it had been a normal medicine, the protocal is to stop taking it; and you're fine in a few days. I had the bad side effects for a month, and there was nothing anyone could do.

Just something to think about; things can go wrong, and dosing strategies like this don't always take that into consideration.

Yup. This is pretty darn narrow. Still important. But it won't mean much until it works it way up.

It's an excellent point. DMCA is for copyright. My take (I have a background in this area but IANAL): I think they can get away with the copyright because of the name/content usage (no one of the opposite end of the request is going to question that, it seems obvious), but I think it's clear to those in the know that's not WHY they went after this one.

In theory, they could probably use DCMA to go after anyone using the terms (right or wrong). In practicality, they used it as a tool to go after this particular one because they didn't like what they were doing.

This may be a dumb question, but do you know if this something that LLM frameworks like LangChain can (or others) can help with? Aren't they designed to help with more complex prompts/logic/outputs? Or will they run into the same token limits?

You don't own ChatGPT output -- you can't legally sell it to others.

You also, by the services terms of use, have to source when something is partially or fully written by ChatGPT.

But that's the API, not the Chat input or Playground.

Companies can use Azure OpenAI Services to get around this -- there's data privacy, encryption, SLAs even. The problem is it's very hard to get access to (right now).

And "laid off" means eligble for uneployment; "fired" often does not.

Someone from YouTube creator team commented back but on the thread but it's pretty generic -- that they're working on new tools and they're just as frustrated.

It's a well done video explaining the problem and really the frustration of creators who are fighting these bots and haven't given up.

Netflix needs to move to the KDrama model -- a set 20-24 epsidodes for a series. You know it's fixed going in. If they want to, then you do a follow-up, but then it's never expected to continue. It just is contained.

I like the ombudsman idea. A lot.

I am a tech executive in my company and my direct e-mail address is at the bottom of every Web site. Yes, this means I deal with routing all sorts of problems BUT I know instantly when there is a problem. Any problem. And I can actually help. But really it helps me with my job. It's win/win/win.

Plus, poor customer services is simply inexcusable -- you have to treat people the way you want to be treated. You're letting yourself and everyone else down otherwise. There is ethics and morals in business and they are important.

It doesn't have to be my way but there are definitely ways to do it, do it well and not break the bank.

Not only is it a horrible word it's not even accurate in this context -- it's modifying "To Write" which is the infinitive verb, which really is the action of the writing, not the result, which is what the author actually wants to convey.

Normally this wouldn't bug me so much but on an essay about effective writing....urgh.

Please not that I am personally more pro scraping that anti. However, this article's interpretation of this ruling (which is from September 2019) is overblown and suspect:

1) This is the 9th circuit only. The 9th circuit is known for being very liberal in these kids of rulings. There is a high likelihood that this ruling could be interpreted differently in other circuits and when it goes to the supreme court.

2) Saying "it makes it legal" is more of a technicality with this ruling and NOT practicality. There is still a LOT open to interpretation with this ruling (see 1, above). And lot of what it's saying just isn't found in the case. And again, it doesn't apply everywhere.

3) This is actually a much better summary of the case: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/data-scraping-survives-... In fact, there's a number of better summaries are out there by people who actually understand both technology and law from when it happened (again, back in September 2019). Here's some others:

https://www.cooley.com/-/media/cooley/pdf/reprints/2019/2019...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190909/17571342951/big-n...

Honestly, it comes back to a lot of existing issues, like whether facts can be copyrighted (e.g., this is why recopies alone can't be), whether logins imply privacy, etc.

I personally think the ruling is in the right direction but again, I don't think this source deals with any of the complexity or the reality of what the ruling does (or still doesn't) mean.

Aren't there configuration options/levels that can be set within CloudFlare to mitigate these issues?

EDIT: Another user posted this below, answering my question:

sgtfrankieboy 1 hour ago | undown [-]

In CloudFlare go to "Firewall" and then click Settings on the right. Here you can set the Security Level and if you want to use Browser Integrity Checks among other thing

Thank you! This is extremely informative.

Thank you for this! Very much appreciated.

SIDE NOTE: curious -- it says 4 comments but I only see one at time of me writing this. Thanks.

This was my thought as well. It has to be some sort of UK law? But I can't find it. The laws apply to surreptitiously installing the software on someone else's phone or computer. But then owning (and/or buying) the software shouldn't be illegal and the site shouldn't have been able to come down.

Hacking tools aren't illegal by default, that I know of anyway.

Exactly. The underlying laws in many of these countries allow this to happen. They don't change the laws because they don't want it to change.

This isn't uncommon though -- even 30 years ago MLB would kick people out for any kind of signage they found off-brand, not even political in nature.

Unless is extremely typical of what you normally see at a game, you're not going to be allowed to show it.

Yes, thank you. This can't be stated enough or loudly enough! You absolutely have to manually check, then check it again -- even with privacy issues, find a way to be non-identifiable and check it. Data is such a huge factor in whether your project will fail or not, yet too many people don't give it the respect (and dare I say love) it deserves.

What is really interesting about this is how completely and utterly horrible a job Blizzard did in anticipating and preparing this very obvious possibility, and thus is so poorly handling every single aspect of this.This so obviously was likely to happen that it easily could have been anticipated and planned for to be dealt with in a much, much more professional way, and yet clearly they didn't, and it's beyond inexcusable for any major company to drop the ball like this. And they just continue to prove their incompetence in how they're (not) responding now -- they should be in crisis PR mode, yet they're just sitting there, paralyzed.

How they've (mis)handled this will be studied by business and PR students for years to come.

How is this not debtors prison?

Yeah, it comes off as more as a way of taking advantage of desperate people willing to try anything.

You can do the same exact thing with facebook advertising. People have done it (job ads, apartments, etc.). This is just targeted at banner/Web vs. social media.

Doesn't make it any more or less icky, just saying that it's not the only method/it's happening already.

Even when the rest of it is "available" it can be taken back after weeks if it doesn't actually "clear."

There's what you see as clearing vs. actual clearing.

I've also had, with very large deposits, to call my bank and insist they call the other bank because they only way they'll clear the check is through manual verification. (This was a big bank and a smaller credit union -- 15 days later the big bank would only clear the check with a phone call from the credit union, but wouldn't tell me why/how and took a lot of digging from me to get the hold lifted. It also turned out the credit union had given the big bank the OK two days in, but big bank's system didn't "read" it somehow).

In other words, things can still VERY manual when it comes to check clearing, particularly large checks.

This has been linked to and commented on endlessly for years now, on many sites, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3159210

And I've never really understood why; most conference organizers like this kind of detail.

I esp. don't understand the link now -- it has no relevance to the recent news (at least that I can see?) But maybe I'm missing something?

I'm not sure how this is anything new. Phone company employees sometimes listened to phone calls. Unless your communication is encrypted somehow you have to assume that at least some employees of the service may have access (which is probably detailed somewhere in a user agreement).

Yes, exactly. But to me in many ways that's application programming on the Web vs. Web programming. It may seem pedantic but it's two separate skill sets, and my teams that do each are separate (I have front-end devs that are basically application programmers using Angular/React and front-end devs who are CSS/JavaScript/Animation specialists -- they aren't the same teams).

I included the WRONG link - please use this instead: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-sends-consum...