Biden will pull more moderates and centrists, the key group in this election

Says fucking who?

I don’t know why he wouldn’t simply ignore this ruling. This is one of those situations where the executive has all the power and a judge is telling them to do something. Just don’t.

It’s like you can’t even be a rightwing fascist without people jumping to conclusions when you’re photographed wearing Nazi memorabilia! This is cancel culture, which is clearly the worst problem in society. /s

They’re not white supremacists, they just “celebrate their European ancestry”.

Polling bonus for triggering the libs.

The judge, who was appointed by Donald Trump, wrote that the pause “is completely without reason or logic and is perhaps the epiphany of ideocracy [sic].”

Truly the person we should listen to when determining national climate policy. Ignore him.

Doesn’t the Chevron ruling doom basically any standard originating from the executive? It’s almost impossible to talk about planned regulations after the Supreme Court seized that power.

We’re there. Netanyahu referenced Amalek in his war speech, a story where god commanded the Jews to kill every last infant of an enemy nation. The deputy speaker in parliament explicitly said there are no innocent civilians in Gaza and it must be wiped off the face of the earth.

From a Washington Post article on it:

The new element in the proposal would come with a second phase, during which Israel and Hamas would negotiate a permanent cease-fire and complete Israeli withdrawal. Under the newly announced plan, the temporary cease-fire would continue beyond the six weeks until such a permanent plan is put in place, provided neither side violated its terms and negotiations continued.

So the second step is basically optional. Israel can pause the invasion of Rafah, get some hostages back, and then just go back to what they were doing. Netanyahu’s already said all the hostages are not enough for him to stop, he also requires the destruction of Hamas (the people who are supposed to accept the negotiated terms) and long-term security control over Gaza (i.e., reestablish the occupation), so the negotiations are probably doomed from the start. It’s really a one-phase plan for a limited hostage swap masquerading as three.

Did the image get copied onto their servers in a manner they were not provided a legal right to? Then they violated copyright. Whatever they do after that isn’t the copyright violation.

And this is obvious because they could easily assemble a dataset with no copyright issues. They could also attempt to get permission from the copyright holders for many other images, but that would be hard and/or costly and some would refuse. They want to use the extra images, but don’t want to get permission, so they just take it, just like anyone else who would like an image but doesn’t want to pay for it.

The US can’t afford to lose Israel as an ally so it needs to be subtle.

Israel is not in any way a critical US ally. Their influence in the region is basically non-existent and their inclusion in our various Middle Eastern adventures would do more harm than good so they’re never asked. They’re a client state heavily dependent on US arms and diplomatic protection, not some highly desirable ally we need to carefully court.

“Free” vs. “open source” is a distinction without a practical difference. It’s not about what it is or what it does, it’s about vibes.

There’s no future step of “popularizing it”. They’ve been trying for 40 years and it’s been an abject failure. Another decade isn’t going to finally get it to stick, it’s just a dumb idea. It’s is a very up-their-own-asses grognard thing to just reject reality and keep demanding it happen. “Could it be that I am wrong? No, it must be everyone else who haven’t just done what I wanted them to do because I told them to.”

And yeah, “open source” and “source available” have some confusion, but that’s at least a battle that can be won, and in most cases if you call a source available software package (an actual package with license terms, not just every github project) “open source”, you’ll usually be right (source available and not open source is already a minority). Pointing to that like it justifies instead continuing the crusade for “free” isn’t even remotely comparing issues of similar difficulty.

Trying to jump in whenever someone calls costless software “free” with a “free as in beer”/“free as in speech” explanation or “no, that’s costless software, not free software” just makes FOSS look like an arcane and exclusionary movement for unpleasant nerds, like Richard Stallman.

If you’re going to complain that the GPL isn’t unrestricted (true), then it’s just as much a complaint about it not being “free” (as in freedom). Just use “open source”. It’s its own thing that people understand and is free from definitional conflicts that it will assuredly lose.

That there are these dumb mnemonics for “free as in…” just demonstrates how muddled the supposedly defined term is. If you need to continually explain what you mean by “free”, then it’s a failure as a descriptor.

But in context of software, free software means Libre.

It doesn’t though. It’s an awkward attempt to define what words mean by a niche group that even those who value its goals don’t commonly adhere to. I’ve been writing software for two decades now. If a colleague comes up to me and asks “is that software free?” they’re probably talking about cost. You can’t define away common usage. Pick a word that means what you want it to mean or make up a new term.

We all know what FOSS means, because it’s a unique term (yes, despite F being Free). We also all generally understand what “open source” means, even if there’s some confusion with “source available”. But “free”. That’s a total failure and people trying to pretend FSF has any power to define the word in relation to software are just delusional.

Anyway I can’t find synonyms for theese two free in english, what are they?

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/free

“Unrestricted” or “permissive” both look good to me. Or as above, just use a term unique to software like “open source” and then you can define it to exactly the meaning you want.

Ambiguous words with context-dependent meanings don’t make trying to define only one meaning as correct a useful and reasonable task to attempt for a small foundation. There are also notably synonyms for “free” that don’t have that issue.

since some people use the terms casually without understanding that they have specific meanings, and since both phrases use English words that could be interpreted to mean something else. (For example, “free software” doesn’t mean software whose price is zero, and “open-source software” doesn’t mean software whose source code is published in the open.)

The Free Software Foundation can make whatever definitions they want, but they don’t supersede regular English. That’s not a problem with “some people” being casual, it’s a problem with a small entity trying to claim a common term. The confusion is entirely their fault.

In life, people will frequently say things to you that won’t be the whole truth, but you can figure out what’s actually going on by looking at the context of the situation. This is commonly referred to as “being deceptive” or sometimes just “lying”. Corporate PR and salespeople, the ones who put out this press release, do it regularly.

You don’t need to record content categories of searches to make a good tool for displaying websites, you need it to perform predictions about what users will search for. They’ve already said they wanted to focus on AI and linked to an example of the system they want to improve, it’s their site recommender, complete with sponsored recommendations that could be sold for a higher price if the Mozilla AI could predict that “people in country X will soon be looking for vacations”.

The example of the “search optimization” they want to improve is Firefox Suggest, which has sponsored results which could be promoted (and cost more) based on predictions of interest based on recent trends of topics in your country. “Users in Belgium search for vacations more during X time of day” is exactly the sort of stuff you’d use to make ads more valuable. “Users in France follow a similar pattern, but two weeks later” is even better. Similarly predicting waves of infection based on the rise and fall of “health” searches is useful for public health, but also for pushing or tabling ad campaigns.

You can technically modify any network weights however you want with whatever data you have lying around, but without the core training data you can’t verify that your modifications aren’t hurting the original capabilities. Fine-tuning (which LoRa is for) isn’t the same thing as modifying a trained network. You’re still generally stuck with their original trained capabilities you’re just reworking the final layer(s) to redirect/tune it towards your problem. You can’t add pet faces into a human face detector, and if a new technique comes out that could improve accuracy you can’t rebuild the model with it.

In any case, if the inference software is actually open source and all the necessary data is free of any intellectual property encumberances, it runs without internet access or non commodity hardware.

Then it’s open source enough to live in my browser.

So just free/noncorporate. A model is effectively a binary and the data is the source (the actual ML code is the compiler). If you don’t get the source, it’s not open source. A binary can be free and non-corporate, but it’s still not source code.

What does “open source” mean to you? Just free/noncorporate? Because a “100% open source model” doesn’t really make sense by the traditional definition. The “source” for a model is its data, not the code and not the model itself. Without the data you can’t build the model yourself, can’t modify it, and can’t inspect why it does what it does.