I honestly hope they do, just so we can all watch the entire thing crash and burn.
Don't get me wrong, I've worked in the ML/AI industry since 2014 and helped bring products with LLMs to radiologists (Rad AI). I'm not opposed to AI. I just think the idea that this company can replace IT staff to be absolutely laughable.
Looks like the OSI gave up on open data as a requirement for open models.
> “The new definition requires Open Source models to provide enough information about their training data so that a ‘skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data,’ which goes further than what many proprietary or ostensibly Open Source models do today,” said Ayah Bdeir, who leads AI strategy at Mozilla. “This is the starting point to addressing the complexities of how AI training data should be treated, acknowledging the challenges of sharing full datasets while working to make open datasets a more commonplace part of the AI ecosystem. This view of AI training data in Open Source AI may not be a perfect place to be, but insisting on an ideologically pristine kind of gold standard that will not actually be met by any model builder could end up backfiring.”
The timing of this is kind of funny, as I've been working on my own version of this for the last few weeks. It's still very much a work in progress so don't judge the repository too harshly.
1. Wolfram's 2, 3, and 4 state automata (including Rule 110)
2. Langton's ants
3. Conway's Game of Life, Highlife, and Immigrant games (immigrant is named after another game, but it's basically life with colors).
4. A clock. This just tells time.
Every few minutes the device will change modes. With the Wolfram rules I include both single starting cells and multiple starting cells, and with Langton's Ant I've managed to great some really interesting patterns by placing multiple ants on the display.
Honestly this seems like Matt just wants WP Engine to give him a ton of money, and when they refused his extortion he threw a temper tantrum and abused his dual lead as head of Wordpress.com (the commercial wordpress) and Wordpress.org (the supposedly independent foundation). The lawsuit that WPEngine filed against Automatic and Matt specifically is a hell of a read.
The foundation isn't even 'wordpress.org', it's 'wordpressfoundation.org'. The 'wordpress.org' site is wholly owned and managed by Matt (using Automatic resources from what he's said).
So, it's not just his dual role, it's his triple role.
This mentality, where ethics and morals are ignored, is how we get things like Theranos.
These people stole a project, illegally changed the license, and pretended it was their own. This is basically theft and fraud, and it's kind of disgusting seeing people defend it.
How are they even able to stay anonymous if they're using google ads? I assume they have to provide a bank account to get paid, and with all the KYC laws it's not exactly trivial to hide your identity.
Of course keeping your followers is important. But having a new empty wall was a real problem for me.
I didn't know it. Nobody told me, from the people to the interface that I would lose my 3500 messages. It's like having your blog content on another domain in the hands of another host, that can shut your old page down when he wants.
It's the perfect walled garden in terms of content.
Also, the instance where I was had its backup feature down for months. Finally, the followers migration failed at 80 %.
> On this page you can also download a copy of your archive that can be read by any ActivityPub software. This archive includes all of your posts and media. So even if the instance that you are moving from shuts down, as is the case with KNZK, you will still have a copy of all of your posts!
Presumably it's not a technical limitation, since an importer could be written and added by some instances, even if not accepted upstream.
If the lack of import is caused by policy conflict or cost for administrators to review bulk-imported content, does this encourage individuals to have a paid instance to aggregate historical content, e.g. https://masto.host.
A couple of solutions: (a) post them on a website and put a link in your new Mastodon profile, or (b) use something like mastodon.py https://mastodonpy.readthedocs.io/en/stable/index.html to post them to your new account.
> Disclosure : my account was censored, I did not respect one of the "laws" specific to the instance.
In the early 2000s, hackers were staunch defenders of free speech. The internet was a safe space from an often conservative and religiously Puritanical "meat space".
Now that the pendulum has swung, a majority seemingly wants to shut down the things and the people that they disagree with. Moreover, the accepted social behavior encourages this kind of hate and range and spite. It's even been gamified.
In many ways, the future turned out a lot worse than I'd hoped for. This is certainly one of the things I loathe.
I run a Mastodon server and I'm quick to moderate things that I'd probably want a monolithic service like Twitter or Facebook to allow. We're a smallish community of like-minded people, and the people on my server repeatedly tell me they like my moderation policies. If they didn't, I'd change them to match the community's mores.
But here's the deal: while I can and do moderate what passes through my server, there's absolutely nothing I can do about how you run yours. I'm not telling anyone they can't say certain things. I'm telling them they need to say it somewhere else.
By analogy, it's probably closer to a message board. If I were running a board for physicists, I feel absolutely zero obligation to allow crackpots to post anti-science nonsense and yell at the scientists there. They can go make their own message board, or Mastodon instance, if they want to say those things.
There is always going to be some percentage of interest overlap between users that gets destroyed by federated moderation. It's too coarse grained and ruins the decentralized possibilities of the internet.
That isn't to say that users shouldn't be able to filter out whatever they dislike. Rather, it would be best if that was a user's choice [1].
I participate in LGBT spaces, but I'm not going to block people for playing Harry Potter. I don't appreciate people stepping in my way to censor things they think I shouldn't see or hear.
To make an analogy with Reddit, if I make a comment in r/conservative (without necessarily even subscribing to their ideology), I get banned from dozens of other subreddits via automated moderation tools. That's a lot like how Mastodon thinks the world should work. But that's not how people are or should be.
Mastodon (and subreddit mods) think everyone should wear a membership pin or be emblazoned with a Scarlet Letter. That's incredibly harmful to people and is leading to increasing polarization in society.
[1] I'm sure that could even be done at scale by subscribing to community block lists. It shouldn't be a hassle, it just shouldn't be centrally planned and executed with no recourse from the end users.
Here is another perspective: In the 2000s, many of us were children and teens. Now we’re not, and definitely don’t want our own kids to be exposed to the same Internet as we were back then…
People romanticize that time way more than it deserves.
I’m not a fan of censorship, but there’s a case to be made for reasonable adults deciding the ground rules. Case in point: Twitter.
I could see things swinging back to an IndieWeb-style setup where we have blogs that can ping each other. I have my own blog hosted on micro.blog for exactly that reason. I can follow other peoples posts as if they were posting to Twitter or something, reply to them, see their replies, etc., and ultimately I own 100% of my content and can move it to any other blog software at any time. Maybe this is the way.
Your profile includes your posts and all your data, and you are free to move it around, back it up, host it wherever you want, etc... But all the posts are federated together.
I haven't looked at it closely in a while but I know they're still growing slowly but steadily..
Yes, I've switched to Bluesky. After investigating their protocols, Bluesky fits my needs way better. I'm quite convinced now Mastodon will never leave the tech sphere.
It's a migration for the future, not a migration of your past content - understandable because that past content likely has references from other instances and pushing those changes across would be a heavy operation, unreliable, and probably fraught with potential security problems.
I believe for retaining content it's pretty much retaining it for yourself by downloading an archive, though some instances may allow uploading that. There's also at least one browser-based web app that lets you open and view the content of that archive - otherwise it's kind of useless.
> It's a migration for the future, not a migration of your past content - understandable because that past content likely has references from other instances and pushing those changes across would be a heavy operation, unreliable, and probably fraught with potential security problems.
Yes of course I'm getting the technical and conceptual difficulties as a developer, but it's awful UX. It's a real deal breaker once you discover it. You cannot use Mastodon as your primary content database anymore.
I don’t. It’s naive to believe any social network is in it for the long haul. Too many have failed to believe they won’t as well. Particularly, exitter.
It’s best to assume anything you don’t host yourself is ephemeral.
And yet, I have Facebook posts that will be 20 years old next year. The attitude that “I’m distrusting of social media, therefore this major adoption blocker is fine as it exists” is why only techies have managed to adopt Mastodon, and is why that will be the limits of its adoption.
Migration for the future, LOL. Like stepping off a boat, with a suitcase and the shirt on your back. Except it's just another third world country, from which you will have to do it all over again.
Net, sure, but it's actually really really complex when you look at point in time numbers.
> Carbon dioxide is not released during photosynthesis, but small amounts of that gas are emitted both day and night as a by-product of cellular respiration. It is worth noting that the majority of plants absorb carbon dioxide during the day for photosynthesis and do so in greater amounts than they release for cellular respiration.
So depending on the time plants could easily be pushing out more CO2 than they are pulling it at that time, which could result in CO2 concentrations increasing during that time.
reply