There are now three distinct methods to measure visual imagery objectively, without relying on someone's description of the vividness.
Here is a video in which prof Joel Pearson describes them: https://youtu.be/tA_4HNaKsS0 , IIRC Joel Pearson was involved in developing each of the methods, so I'm sure you can find his publications on the subject as well.
I'm using the Hey approach in Fastmail, so my main folders are Inbox and Screener, with a filter like this:
Matches NOT fromin:contacts -> Move to Screener
I'll check the Screener less frequently, and whenever I feel like it I'll take a message from it and use Actions -> Add rule from message.. and send messages from that sender to a Newsletter folder.
I still get lots of crap in the Screener, but then again I don't really use e-mail to communicate with humans, so in a sense all e-mail is automated nonsense from systems where I have some kind of user account.
> Also the UI around managing resident keys is not great and uncoupled from where they are typically used (the browser).
Chrome allows you to see stored resident keys and delete individual resident keys on any hardware token which supports CTAP 2.1. (to be fair, it is a bit hidden: Settings -> Privacy and security -> Security -> Manage security keys -> Sign-in data).
If you really don't want to miss out on offers because of this, you could try to negotiate it after a certain amount of time and you've proven your worth at your job.
In one of my first jobs I negotiated less hours instead of a raise whenever I got offered a raise. I went from 40 hours/week to 36 hours/week to 32 hours/week in a few years.
1. They are charging for use of the Overflow API, not the data itself.
2. They are enforcing the attribution clause of the existing CC-BY-SA license on the content. In their opinion if an AI bot answer includes parts from the stack overflow API (or data dump?), it should credit the most closely matching answer by linking back to stack overflow.
It is not clear if they can enforce the CC license at all here, they are not the authors of the content and their ToS do not contain any clause to delegate enforcement to SE.
Following up on the parent, for those who don't already know, EE = ExpertsExchange, an older question-answer website that got strong Google SEO for the questions but eventually hid the actual answers behind a paywall. If you wanted to see the answer, you had to pay. StackOverflow was, at least partially, a reaction to that in the beginning.
There was initially some confusion about the license behind the answers, and they went through some license-spinning (https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing).
Now, most things at StackOverflow (and the other StackExchange websites) are under CC BY-SA 3.0 or 4.0. Important to point out that there is no ban on training in any of those licenses, probably because they were written before that was even a thing. However, regardless (and the obligatory IANAL), that attribution clause should certainly be included, if it was directly derivative of the code on SO. (How to track thousands of attributions across a large codebase is another question.)
Whether closing down the API is abiding by the spirit of the license is an open question, but it certainly seems to be allowed by the letter of the license.
My personal feeling is that this is rowing upstream, and that the large and incredibly-well-funded companies like OpenAI, Claude, Google, and Meta have already scraped all of that historical data, so this really only hurts the new startups that are poorly funded. However, I'm sure that making this deal with Google et al will be a good thing for Stack Exchange as a whole and perhaps the funding will breathe new life into Stack Overflow (et al).
It’s probably considered enough of a transformation that it no longer falls under the license, but that’s the main question on copyright that’s getting solved in courts right now anyway.
I wonder if the Share Alike license could be updated to include sharing models trained on that data. I’d certainly like to see more CC-licensed models out there.
Can't wait for the avalanche of excuses from AI proponents about how attribution is impossible because their stealing machine totally doesn't steal and even if it did couldn't tell you what it's stealing from and anyway this is the FUTURE!!!1! How dare you be opposed to literally any technological change we decide to call progress go back to your cave luddite
Gaming saw a huge increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, and companies staffed up, because they either had a bunch more money coming in or it was easy to get investments. All these gaming layoffs to me seem like a correction back to pre-covid levels.
We've also seen a bunch of consolidation in recent years, which in itself makes some positions redundant.
So I know a lot of the tech (non gaming) layoffs were correcting the over-hiring during covid.
However I did not think gaming did the same thing. Especially given the long development timelines for games now it wouldn't have made as much sense. It isn't like they could hire during the boom and expect to get anything out within a reasonable amount of time.
Is there anything out there talking about gaming also doing a big hiring push during covid?
> Especially given the long development timelines for games now it wouldn't have made as much sense.
Not all projects have long development-time, and not all jobs in gaming are for developers. And in the first place, nobody knew how long the pandemia and the gaming-hype would last.
> It isn't like they could hire during the boom and expect to get anything out within a reasonable amount of time.
Actually you can, they don't need to be masterpieces, but churning out something in 18+ Months if you are an already established company is not that hard. Especially when you already have some projects with years of planning in your archive. And there are also many projects which are getting abandoned half-way when it turns out to be a bad case.
> Is there anything out there talking about gaming also doing a big hiring push during covid?
Check out GameDiscoverCo on substack - Simon's mentioned it a few times. Unfortunately, substack seems to be having technical difficulties, so I can't link anything.
On the other hand, you have the possibility of not lying and getting an useful answer. The difficulty of doing that varies, and the more objective the questions, the easier it is.
Here is a video in which prof Joel Pearson describes them: https://youtu.be/tA_4HNaKsS0 , IIRC Joel Pearson was involved in developing each of the methods, so I'm sure you can find his publications on the subject as well.