I think it is just chain of trust. Many used Microslop as the trust authority (may be due to convenience? I have no idea). Debian has a nice page on Secure boot and how it works.
Aww.. My dog is also named Nora.
I'm extremely conflicted about this.
On one hand I believe, ads industry is behind the age verification laws, and governments and law enforcement agencies are taking this as an opportunity to increase surveillance on citizen.
On the other hand, there are genuine risk in not regulating tech products used by kids. Especially AI chats. But I'm not convinced age verification is the solution.
When the IT proliferated in 90s and 2000s, tech companies played the standard game of arguing that the laws present at that time were inadequate for regulating them, and this resulated in the surveillance nightmare we are currently in. The former Commissioner of Federal Trade Commission of USA, Lina Khan, in an interview with Jon Stewart, pointed this out, and drew parallels on how AI comapnies are using the same playbook now.
This is a classic trick played by capitalism, where they push for "unregulated" free market. This usually results in severe harm on kids and marginalized groups in the society, because oppressor get more power and accountability is non existent. But at the same time, every attempt to bring in regulations usually results in increased surveillance by data brokers and governments, which helps these groups to either make money or get into power.
All these power hungry maniacs, and money making machines, don't care about a common person. People are commodities for them. A resource to make money or get into power. Unless things start to have a people first approach, ironically which is what democracy claims to do, this is going to be bad for a common person like you and me. We suffer, they gain. We get oppressed, and they get more power to oppress.
Hows Adobe doing with all the AI slop being available for everyone?
I used Adobe Products for 20+ years (regarding the total amount I spent, IYKYK). Last couple of years I moved away from graphical design to system design and occasional programming. Recently I made a complete switch to Linux, and now I use only open source products.
The tooling around AI should be to improve the quality of the programmer. Not to write the code for the programmer.
For example if you ask an agent how to scale things well, and best practices in architecture, it will have a lot of resources on it. But that does not mean the code it will produce when you ask it to write a programme will consider and include the best practices it gave you in a separate question. That is the 'intelligence' part that LLMs cannot have. If you ask a it to do a certain way it will create it. Context tries to address this by prompting the user to give more, but that is not persistent.
This is exactly why senior devs finding LLMs works for them, because they know 'how' to do it, and they explicitly state it. But at the same time junior devs feel they think the code written by LLM is the 'best' way so solve a problem and superior in quality, even if it is not, because they don't know any better.
Tooling should be able to help the developers improve their knowledge and skill on 'how' to do it. Instead it always focus on writing the code. I want to add that I'm not talking about algorithms. But every aspect of coding, in which the programmer needs to know 'how' to do it.
Krafton? The same publisher that fired the founders of Subnautica 2 to avoid paying bonus? Also the stupid CEO who asked ChatGPT to create a plan to orchestrate this entire drama? And lose spectacularly in court? Well...
There is a GitHub link in the post. Not hyperlinked. May be that's why you missed. Here is the link.
On a side note. There was Magic School Bus game like apps, which were brought to the public by none other than Microslop. What a time was that..
I'm confused. Why a licensing change is needed? In the particular example they changed to MIT. Is this considered as the first step for paid features and other stuff?
My confusion is regarding why a licensing change is done, not that whether it is valid or not, since it is LGPL it is not valid, and no doubt in that. But what is the intention behind this change is what I don't understand. Can someone explain?
Great. This looks really good. Eyes and lips are amazing.
Just a suggestion, looks like the eyebrows can be improved. Also the freckles feeld kind of patches, and weirdly uniform. May be brush size variation will help with eyebrows?
Again I don't mean to say negative things. I am just sharing what I felt.
Edit: @Successful_Try543@feddit.org solved it. It says "one special character". Not "at least one".
Just want to say that it is not fully open source, if you care about the license.