radlad

Out of curiosity, what movie?

> hey there's a project idea: a "todo list" for rippers that scrapes imdb and checks what's not in pirate ba

Private sites do things like this, archival efforts and have request systems.

Don't want to name drop, but this is unfortunately a real phenomenon.

Counterpoint: I've done 3 and all went through without drama.

1. Tell it to find docs and research best practices.

2. Ask for references and read them.

> When done properly your own knowledge should have grown to meet the product you end up with.

A mobile phone?

It just means people pick up their phone instead.

The position they took sounds much more politically feasible than the one you suggest they should've taken, at a time when the White House was threatening them with the Defense Production Act.

You seem to be responding to OP line by line instead of understanding their overall point.

OP doesn't appear to be saying Catholicism ought not to grow - rather that they believe trying to appeal to a wider audience than that which is already interested in religion is likely to fail, or worse, backfire.

> They simply function in whatever way they "consider to be valid".

No, they would function in the manner courts deem to be valid.

I find in these cases the best option is to provide references, docs, etc. If you'll need them regularly, save them to Markdown files.

And domains can change hands legitimately.

Like some kind of UI over a database scraped by code which understands Github, Forgejo, Gitlab, sr.ht, etc?

One issue is that issues tend to be monotonically increasing numbers, and references to old issues vs. new issues get confusing over time.

> People can indeed form cooperatives to handle the protection, but this is hard to manage globally as an entity.

This is a fascinating idea. Is this something anyone is working on?

> Right, it already is that, and adding shared trash bins won't make it not that.

But it will change participant behavior. Most attendees work very hard to reduce the amount of trash they generate at a burn, period. This is why people bring reusable cups and plates and silverware, etc. If you provide trash services, people will be more willing to bring trash - after all, it's easy to dispose of. And this violates the LNT principle.

Can't wait to use it as a mouse for my Windows-based couch gaming PC.

That sounds incredibly frustrating, I'm sorry. Good luck.

I remember one of these shops all the way back in the late 2000s. At the time I was confused about whether it was operated by eBay or a third party. It did not last long.

> i am guessing they found early in training that an agreeable LLM is better received than one which is constantly truthful and considers you to be pretty dumb

My sense is that this is sort of accurate, but more likely it's a result of two things:

1. LLMs are still next-token predictors, and they are trained on texts of humans, which mostly collaborate. Staying on topic is more likely than diverging into a new idea.

2. LLMs are trained via RLHF which involves human feedback. Humans probably do prefer agreeable LLMs, which causes reinforcement at this stage.

So yes, kinda. But I'm not sure it's as clear-cut as "the researchers found humans prefer agreeableness and programmed it in."

> They involve a grill-me session with 20-60 sometimes more questions for tasks to get alignment which produces the design and the plan in one window.

My experience with this has been that it front-loads a lot of the LLM interactions, which can be exhausting without a reward (i.e. output.) And then, when I get the output, it's so large as to be hard to review/grok.

In other words, it feels a bit like when my coworker delivers me a month's worth of work in a single PR.

I have never had this happen, but I don't buy from first-time eBay sellers. There are definitely scams on there, but they seem to be "too good to be true" prices with 0 reviews on the seller.

Surely you're not getting scammed by sellers with lots of reputational history?

I actually am more nervous as a seller, as their buyer protection almost always sides with buyers, at least in the US (and the fee is astronomical.)

What would make it better? My only complaint as a seller is fees. I have no complaints as a buyer.

The best part is eBay works exactly the same as 10 years ago, as far as I can tell.

Interesting how none of these are around anymore

If you're interested in the program, you can find more details here: https://hrf.org/program/ai-for-individual-rights/ai-for-indi...

They offer grants for "Using AI tools and platforms to more efficiently build movements and resist oppression" in addition to many other things.

Yeah, my whole life. That's weird, not what I've experienced.

Rain is warm, and a sign of spring. It's not snow or ice which is typical to see a bit for at least the first half of April. In southeast Michigan we've had unseasonably warm weather, the trees and flowers all bloomed early, and people are talking about mowing since weeks ago. Typically you wouldn't plant anything until at least Mother's Day.

A few years ago we did "no mow May." The grass is taller now than it was at the end of May then. A quick Google says average L/H for Detroit is 40/50 in April. It's been significantly warmer than that with many days in the 60s and 70s.

Are you from Michigan or did you move here recently? Or perhaps you live further North?

It's been a very warm and early spring here in Michigan.

#8634 is specifically about a breaking change that occurred in v12. It's literally the first line of what you linked:

> In the v12 release of Forgejo (fixed in v12.0.1) there have been breaking changes that impact third-party authentication sources that use Forgejo as a provider. If you have been affected, please help us assessing the impact ...

I'm really confused by this interpretation. I see a single comment by the maintainer, saying:

> That mistake was made in the past (#8634), where there was still a lot of usages of a old and announced deprecated method (and even with quite some effort there is).

It was a related, but separate issue, which is perhaps best-described in this upstream issue: https://github.com/python-social-auth/social-core/issues/121...

The "plain" setting jvoison wants to remove is described here: https://security.stackexchange.com/a/218554

I do agree with the maintainer that a discussion is warranted before removing this setting. But I also wouldn't personally have closed the PR while waiting for said discussion to occur - and the maintainer could have created a discussion themselves. They are signaling they don't want this change, full stop.