This is a problem with the add-on store, not the browser. Do the forks have their own add-on stores? Or do they just use the same one that Mozilla provides? To the best of my knowledge, the only forks that have their own stores are the ones that wouldn’t be able to use Firefox plugins anyway (e.g. Palemoon).

Can someone translate this to Canadian English? Thanks.

I don’t think forking Firefox is going to change what you see in the add-on store. You would need someone to run their own store. Or just install the plugin manually.

I’d be surprised if being born with a specific face configuration isn’t protected in the same way that race and gender are.

Treat people well, and people will like you.

Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?

“Insufficient detail. Please ask a specific question.”

This is a very real problem from the answering side. So many people would rather have you guess what they’re trying to ask and then get mad at you when you guess wrong.

This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.

But then that wouldn’t be for health reasons, right?

Implying perfect code exists anywhere.

It’s also trivially easy to tell if you’re presenting someone else’s work as your own. In an interview, you ask about their projects. Those would be very easy (and often fun) for the actual creator to answer, and not for anyone else.

It is made by scientists. And we don’t know how to make the model determine whether or not it knows something. So far, we only have tools that tell us that something probably wasn’t in the training set (e.g. using variance across models in a mixture of experts setup), but that doesn’t tell us anything about how correct it is.

I’ve heard Elon Musk (or was it Karpathy?) talking about how camera should be sufficient for all scenarios because humans can do it on vision alone, but that’s poor reasoning IMO. Cars are not humans, so there’s no reason to confine them to the same limitations. If we want them to be safer and more capable than human drivers, one way to do that is by providing them with more information.

Standing on the shoulder of dwarves hiding deep underground

Oh, I see. You’re clarifying why jonne thought this was the case, not arguing for why they’re correct.

The article is about Google. Why does it matter that it’s missing from the Alphabet handbook?

And if they do find it, it’ll all be kept hush hush, they’ll force an update on everyone with no explanation, some people will do everything in their power to refuse because they need to keep their legacy software running, and the exploit stays alive in the wild.

I have no interest in this game, so I wouldn’t know how it actually affects gameplay. But do you not agree that this is shitty business practice? You have a game. Sell the game. If you want microtransactions, then produce extra art or something and sell that. You can even make the case that separating out parts of the game into various DLCs on launch is acceptable. You’re at least charging for something of value that you created.

Implementing anti-cheat costs resources and makes the end result strictly worse. Now you want people to pay you to undo that? That’s creating negative value. We want the economy to run on people creating positive value.

I think a more apt comparison is if you’re renting out a place where every light switch is three-way with one switch near the light it controls and another in a closet with all the other light switches. You can control the ones in the closet for free, but the ones in a reasonable location are pay-per-use. The problem isn’t that the features aren’t available for free. It’s that they poured resources into deliberately making things worse, then they charge you to undo that. Literally creating negative value.

Responding to your first two paragraphs:

The enjoyability of a piece of art isn’t independent of the creator. I will only speak for myself since I don’t know other people’s experiences. When you see something that tickles the happy part of your brain, part of that emotional response is in knowing that there’s another person out there who probably felt that way and wanted to share those feeling with you. In experiencing those emotions, you also experience a connection with another human being. The knowledge that you’re not alone and someone else out there has experienced the same thing. I wouldn’t read through the credits because I don’t care who that person is. I just care that this person existed. When you look at AI generated work and it just feels empty despite the surface beauty, this is the missing piece. It’s the human connection.

Tbh, I’d rather work and line the shareholders pockets a little bit more than be bored out of my mind in a pointless meeting.