❤️ sex work is work ✊

  • 0 Posts
  • 95 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • Luke@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlA tool for concealing writing style using LLM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This seems like a valuable utility for concealing writing style, though I feel like the provided example fails to illustrate the rest of the stated goal of the project, which is to “prevent biases, ensuring that the content is judged solely on its merits rather than on preconceived notions about the writer” and “enhance objectivity, allowing ideas to be received more universally”.

    The example given is:

    You: This is a demo of TextCloak!!!

    Model: “Hey, I just wanted to share something cool with you guys. Check out this thing called TextCloak - it’s pretty neat!”

    The model here is injecting bias that wasn’t present in the input (claims it is cool and neat) and adds pointlessly gendered words (you guys) and changes the tone drastically (from a more technical tone to a playful social-media style). These kinds of changes and additions are actually increasing the likelihood that a reader will form preconceived notions about the writer. (In this case, the writer ends up sounding socially frivolous and oblivious compared to the already neutral input text.)

    This tool would be significantly more useful if it detected and preserved the tone and informational intent of input text.



  • I looked at the comments on a few of your posts, and people are telling you exactly why they are annoyed by them.

    Your posts come off as low effort spam, almost like you’re treating Lemmy communities like a Discord chat room. Also, you post very similar kinds of things about the same couple of games on the daily, and people probably get tired of seeing samey stuff in their feed.

    I’ve noticed that you’re making hyper specific posts (“what do you think about X mission in rdr”) in a general gaming community. Try posting those hyper specific questions in the communities for the actual game you’re asking about, where people who want to nerd out about some random mission are more likely to be.

    It’s cool that you’re trying to engage people though, I think you just need to get some more practice at reading the crowd here. Lurk more, maybe. Lemmy isn’t the other site, we don’t necessarily resonate with all the same kinds of content here.



  • German dubs are actually top notch

    I find this ironic when compared to native language German porn, which frequently has audio that is distractingly out of sync to the point that it almost seems like it’s many minutes off. It’s not even just one studio either, it happens to a lot of them for some reason. I’m starting to wonder if there’s an industry joke that I’m not aware of which explains it, but I haven’t noticed the same issue with porn produced in other languages.






  • I haven’t seen anyone mention nutritional yeast yet, but that’s become my go-to seasoning for almost everything; popcorn, pizza, scrambled eggs, bread, ramen, soft pretzels, and of course on fries. So damn good!

    (Yes, I realize the name “nutritional yeast” sounds vaguely unpleasant and unappetizing, but I promise it’s incredible if you like savory flavors, and it can also be used as a cheese powder substitute in vegan recipes.)


  • Luke@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlMozilla wants you to love Firefox again
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Your statement did leave some wiggle room to quibble over what exactly “very popular” means, though I don’t see how popularity is a useful metric when we’re talking about free software which doesn’t rely on user purchases for revenue. Ultimately it comes down to how funding the development of each software is accomplished, and whether that can be done effectively without selling out.

    However, if we must compare funding strategies based on popularity, then we can. I’m not sure where you got your usage numbers from, but I’ll use your percentage to normalize for the number of employees paid through the funding strategies of both examples to compare the effectiveness of the approaches:

    For purposes of discussion, I’ll assume that you are correct that Blender has 2% of the popularity of Firefox. Normalizing that for comparison, 2% of 840 Mozilla employees is 16.8 employees (round down because you can’t have 0.8 of a person).

    In other words, if Firefox were only 2% as popular as it is now (thus making it equally as popular as you say Blender is), Mozilla would be paying 16 developers with it’s funding strategy.

    Conversely, Blender is able to pay 31 developers using their funding strategy. This means that, even when accounting for popularity, Blender’s funding strategy is 2x more effective than Mozilla’s at paying developers to work on their software.

    Again, I don’t agree that popularity is an important metric to compare here, but even when we do so, it’s clear that it is entirely possible to fund software without resorting to tired old capitalistic funding models that result in the increasingly objectionable violations of user privacy that Mozilla engages in lately. They could choose to do things differently, and we ought not to excuse them for their failure of imagination about how to fund their business more ethically. Especially when perfectly workable alternative funding models are right there in public view for anyone to emulate.


  • Luke@lemmy.mltoPrivacy@lemmy.mlMozilla wants you to love Firefox again
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    it’s simply not possible for something to get very popular without being taken over by a corporation

    Please don’t excuse unethical and exploitative behavior by pretending that it’s unavoidable.

    There are examples of other funding models available; for example, what the Blender Foundation does. It turns out, if a FOSS effort focuses on their community, makes users feel involved and important, asks in good faith for contributions and suggestions, treats people with respect, maintains funding and organizational transparency, and has consistent ethical standards… it can work out very well for them. No selling out required. No data harvesting required. No shady deals with Google required.