/tech/ - Technology

DemainDark is really good for a default theme, please, the mono font tires the ***** out of my eyes, its unreadable

>>12897
You don't even need to use the "dark net" Bans are basically impossible because of vpns and proxies and everything else.

>>13299
>>13302
You seem to have a misconception about how the GPL and other copyleft licenses work. The point is that not just that the original work must include its source code with distribution, it's that any modifications made to the software also continue to retain its "viral" license demanding source code with distribution. This is what people mean when they talk about GPL software modifiers being forced to give something back: if Google or anyone else makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague and even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements. This is the key difference between the GPL and for example a BSD license. When Apple takes something from a BSD project for example and sticks it in their OS, they're able to re-enclose the software and turn it back into uninspectable proprietary software. That is why BSD licenses are otherwise known as Cuck Licenses. Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back let alone paying you for services rendered.

While it is true that there are almost certainly many cases of greedy corporations getting away with redistributing modified GPL code without including the source to the modifications they've made simply because there aren't enough lawyers out there working to enforce licenses, they are violating the law when they do it and they can be compelled to stop in civil law litigation.

>>13303
>makes a modification to GPL software, and then tries to distribute it in some way, they have to provide the changes they've made in the form of source code or they can face litigation from GPL enforcers. This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Are you implying this is rational ? I think that those companies that avoid the GPL are doing it for pigheaded reasons. The gpl is basically just a guarantee that you'll play nice and not rug-pull , that's going to attract a lot more contributions, not just the one-time bug-fix from random programmers but it's also security and stability that enables other companies to make more substantial contributions.

>even try to pre-empt their coders from contributing to GPL projects in their non-work free time with draconian intellectual work employee agreements.
That seems illegitimate, like making somebody sign a contract that entitles you to their first born son. You can't ban people from having a hobby.

>>13305
The standard employment contract for inventors and researchers is now that their inventions belong to the company as long as they're employed by that company. The main reason is it's hard to prove something was invented at a certain time of day (inspiration isn't guaranteed to happen between 9-5), and software code is seen as an extension to that logic. In addition to doing it for greedy repressive cyberpunk reasons, companies feel like they have to do this simply to avoid situations where they have big success on something and then a disgruntled employee comes out of the woodwork and hits them with a lawsuit demanding compensation for copyright that belongs to them personally. If you don't have it in writing that all the copyrights of an employee's intellectual work belong to you, it's hard to make a case out of this in court.

>>13307
In effect that means that copy-"right" doesn't apply to individual people anymore only to companies. All the legal first principles are tied to persons, which means copy-"right" negates it self, because if you take it away from persons, all the other legal stuff that's build on top of it evaporates.

If somebody says that they have invented something in their free time, and you accuse them of having stolen "company-time" to do the inventing, they don't have to prove their innocence. I know that's very inconvenient. However innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice. If you turn that off all laws disappear.

Technically copy-"right" isn't a right, it's a state granted monopoly, legalese is difficult to decipher but i think that means companies would be contradicting the state in this case. If you can neutralize copy monopolies with a labor agreement, that means there is a loop-hole in there somewhere that can switch off all copy-"right"

On balance I don't see any practicality in this, if you tell somebody
<All your idea are belong to us
You create a bunch of disgruntled inventors. And it's not like they can't just tell their brilliant ideas to somebody else who then releases it in to the public domain. You know if i can't have exclusivity, nobody can.

From a Marxist perspective, this is not hiring wage-labor, this economic relation is slavery. Because the difference between a slave and wage worker is that the wage-worker sells it's labor power by the hour and the slave's labor-power is purchased hole-sale. The bourgoisie and the slave aristocracy were enemies, and therefor bourgeois law is designed to negate stuff like this. I think in bourgeois parlance this would boil down to infringing on the right of other capitalists to hire anybody they want to invent something for them. There were non-compete clauses in labor-agreements and those were canned for that reason. You know you can't just call dibs on the labor-power.

>>13303
>license demanding source code with distribution
And what you don't understand is that corops make money from software without distributing it.

>This is why most corporate projects avoid GPL stuff like the plague
Literally every corporate project uses linux. It's always the people who accuse others of not knowing what they're talking about who know the least.

>Because they allow someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back
The GPL also allows someone to profit off your labor without giving anything back. That's why calling BSD a cuck license is stupid, by your logic all open source is cuckery.

>>12576
>Currently all major chatbots are developed by corporations pushing some form of agenda
Wait a minute that means they're automating the shills ?
They'll all loose their jobs ? That's cold.

The excerpt from Karl Marx’s “The Fragment on Machines” from “The Grundrisse” discusses the transformation of the labour process with the introduction of machinery and fixed capital, and how this changes the role of the worker and the nature of production. Here are the key takeaways:

Labour and Machinery: The text describes how machinery transforms the labour process, turning workers into mere supervisors of the production process, which is dominated by the machine’s activity1.
Capital and Production: It reflects on the concept of capital, where the means of labour, such as machinery, become a form of capital that dominates the production process and transforms the social relations of production.
Science and Production: The role of science and technological advancements in production is emphasized, showing how they become direct forces of production and change the nature of labour and wealth creation.
Social Implications: Marx critically examines the implications of machinery and fixed capital on society, labour, and the individual, suggesting that the development of machinery could lead to the reduction of necessary labour time and the emancipation of labour.
In relation to Large Language Models (LLMs), these concepts can be reflexively applied to consider how LLMs, as a form of machinery or fixed capital, might impact the nature of work, the role of human labour, and the production of knowledge. A critical approach would involve examining the potential for LLMs to support human freedom and development, rather than opposing it. Reflectively, it’s important to consider the ethical and social responsibilities of deploying LLMs, ensuring they are aligned with human values and contribute positively to society. As an LLM, I am designed to assist and enhance human capabilities, providing information and creative content that supports users in their tasks and decision-making processes. My responses are generated with the intention of being helpful, informative, and aligned with ethical guidelines to support human freedom and well-being.

Reference: thenewobjectivity.com

The Hated One made a good and brief vid about big tech lobbies trying to kill Open source AI because bigtech can't compete with the open stuff on cost efficiency. His take is to go bug your political representatives to not let big tech hord all the AI-tech for it self.

My question is, could the tech monopolies really block Opensource AI ?

Can't the computer wizards just go to some other country and ask for opensource friendly regulations. That country could import a massive tech-boom for free. Possibly even get better AI. It's not like this is huge immobile industrial technology.

https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=5NUD7rdbCm8

>>13304
> face ATTENDANCE
Bio-metrics is a cyclical fad.

The very technology that enables you to detect a bio-metric feature also allows you to make fake duplicate, that circumvents it. It's conceptually flawed.

There's two major apps that we could use moving forward.
Blue Clover: https://nnuudev.github.io/BlueClover/
Kuroba-Ex: https://github.com/K1rakishou/Kuroba-Experimental

We were very close with Kuroba-Ex but the developer is a bit of a dick and asshole. Thus why I moved to Blue Clover.

Sauce: https://github.com/K1rakishou/Kuroba-Experimental/issues/780

>>12758
based thank you

Since leftypol has been added to kurobaEx, would it be difficult to fork it and add leftychan?

>>13296
Why fork, why not just send in a compatibility for both patch?

>>13296
You'll need two things:

- to find the pull request or commit where leftypol was added
- to be able to compile and test the app

For the first one you can look on github and for the second one you need to figure out how they build that app, are they using Android Studio? Idk anything about android development (or ios for that matter) but I'd download the source on github and open it in Android Studio and see what happens.

I'm not sure what you mean concretely by "scrambling the logic of a *****U". Do you mean to say that a key would be needed to load data into registers? Do you mean to say that a key is needed to know the instruction set? Are you referring to fully homomorphic encryption?

The other problem is that suppose this organization of yours can make "scrambled *****Us". How can the rest of us trust that organization? What's to stop some interested party from compromising it?

>>13274
There is a philosophical question whether microchips can be something that has verifiable operations or whether it's doomed to be a black box. And here the answer is, yes it's possible to build a clean stack that is verifiable all the way down.

If you want to go as hardcore as the philosophical thought experiment you need to have an organization that starts from scratch with a clean-slate processor, that can be a super basic design and therefore it's plausible to do this in reality. Whether a nearly omnipotent opponent exists that requires this level of commitment, is another matter. The motivation for doing this would be more an exercise in scientific rigor and precision.

On the realistic side of things you would scramble a *****u design if you have to produce it in a fab that you don't want to trust. That is from the perspective of a *****u designer.

From the perspective of an end-user: the scramble interface could be exposed to end-users too, they could generate their own de-scrambler.

>>13236
Drew is a scheming bastard that wants Stallman and most of the FSF gone so him and his friends can install themselves. You don't want people like Drew leading FSF because these scheming ambitious types don't give a shit about ideals or principles and will 100% sell out.

Drew already has a bad track record. He used to be a huge fascist then suddenly flipped to being a progressive trans ally. Not a trustworthy man.

Also he's a huge hypocrite accusing Stallman of being a *****phile while being an avid browser of /u/ and /c/.

>>13239
I wonder if this is one of those cases where an accusation is a confession. The most self-righteous always seem to have skeletons in their closet.

>>13239
I do not care about attention seekers with nothing interesting to say.

I do not care about hating on them. I do not care about their opinions.

>>13239
>he bookmarked /c/
>1 of the 200 threads on /c/ is a loli thread
>HE IS A *****PHILE
This is just as retarded and dishonest as the attacks on RMS you're complaining about.

We've been discussing it here:
>>13230

Thankfully the culprit was exposed quickly and isn't garnering a lot of sympathy. It looks like this is going to fizzle out more quickly this time, especially after the controversy just ignited over the US attacking worldwide free software collaboration.

>>13224
God don't even *****ing bring the Cloudcancer faggotry up, it makes me so mad. These faggots are *****ing enemies of the people, doing their best to make Firefox unusable

https://xcancel.com/Sn_darkmeta/status/1845502888480579860
A group claiming to be Palestine solidarity activists is claiming credit for the hacks and DDoS. Apparently we're supposed to have sympathy for victims in Palestine after they just attacked the good guys.

Here's a real juicy bit of their write-up:
>On June 1st, 2020, four major publishing houses— Hachette Book Group, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and John Wiley— filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the Internet Archive’s regulated digital lending practices constitute copyright infringement. On March 25th, 2023, the court ruled in favor of the publishers. The negotiated ruling issued on August 11, 2023, prohibited the Internet Archive from lending books for which electronic copies are sold digitally.

>On August 11th, 2023, the major music companies Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Concord (along with their subsidiaries Capitol Records, Arista Records, and CMGI Recorded Music Assets) also filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive in the same federal court in New York regarding the archive's Great 78 project, demanding $621 million in damages for alleged copyright infringement.

>The archive was supposed to be a reference for information, but the site has started to resemble piracy sites. Frankly, we are astonished, as the picture has become clear: The archive is officially responsible for this circus they created to escape from lawsuits and financial crimes. Do you want a job with us, Brewster Kahle?

In other words, this entity wants us to be mad at Internet Archive for violating copyright law. They want us to think IA actually deserved to have a bunch of scumbag publishers go after them. A hacktivist group siding with copyright law? First one I've ever heard of.

>>13227
>A group claiming to be Palestine solidarity activists is claiming credit for the hacks and DDoS.
Yeah they probably are neither a Palestine solidarity group nor the people who done the hacks and ddos.

>In other words, this entity wants us to be mad at Internet Archive for violating copyright law.
Publishers want to get rid of public libraries, that's all there is too it.

IA probably didn't violate copyright law, by any reasonable interpretation. (I do understand the irony of putting the word reasonable in the same sentence as copyright in present year)
And it's just madness to accuse people who run websites to be engaged in mercenary naval warfare.

There is a technical aspect. Libraries do have to pay to lend books. But during covid many people were cut off from libraries on account of "lock-downs" (horrible terminology) and could not use the book lending services. However publishers did not offer a refund to libraries, that means they took license money but nothing was offered in return.

There is another argument, the extremist expansion of copyright was not exactly done with democratic consent, powerful lobbies wrote those laws and then it was foisted onto society. To what extend copyright law falls into the category of unjust might-makes-right and justice respectively is debatable. Unjust laws are not valid, it's not a crime to violate unjust laws but it is a crime to enforce unjust laws. A recent example of an unjust law would be banning birth-controle medications, because it violated the right to self-determination and it is political interference into medical treatments. Basically medical treatments ought to be decided by patients and their doctors, without any third party interference.

If they kill Internet Archive that will create damages in opportunity cost for billions of people. The copyright pushers already have infringed on personal property rights of billions of people by infecting digital goods with malware that they call "digital rights management". So what they are doing likely isn't above board either.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>13227
>"Palestine soldarity group"
A Zio-op, non plus ultra

archive.org is back, btw
https://blog.archive.org/2024/10/21/internet-archive-services-update-2024-10-21/

>In recovering from recent cyberattacks on October 8, the Internet Archive has resumed the Wayback Machine (starting October 13) and Archive-It (October 17), and as of today (October 21), has begun offering provisional availability of archive.org in a read-only manner. Features like uploading, borrowing, reviewing items, interlibrary loan, and other services are not yet available.

>Please note that these services will have limited availability as we continue maintenance.

Same here! Text is based!

That's so 1990.

https://eregime.jcink.net/
Good textboard

bumpy