Before, only people with resources and skills could afford to create fake content. Now everybody can. How is this not an advancement, taking into account you can't take away the ability to create fakes from people with resources?
By indexing and training on everything it can find in the internet?!
To explain this further: OpenAI et al. (as commercial products) are being trained on content that is published under licenses that allow non-commercial use only. Do those systems respect these licenses? It doesn't look like that. "AI companies" need to stick to laws but as nobody is able to look inside their blackboxes, we can't make sure they follow the law. That's where legislation like this comes from.
> By indexing and training on everything it can find in the <PUBLIC> internet?!
and that's bad because?
I would see the point if they were training on my private data I entrusted to somebody and they illegally obtained it without my permission. Are they doing that?
Search (basically Google and now ChatGPT) do have a history of moving beyond the 10 blue links that search used to be, for better or worse- at the cost of the people that create the content.
Also neither company seem to have much regard for user privacy.
I think you mean you want data to be free. In many situations I agree with you, but ascribing wishes or desires to the concept of data itself really isn't an argument of any substance.
As long as copyright is here; it is expected big players are to be bound by it to the same degree they push legal systems to bind the little guy.
What you get instead, is the big guy pilfering the little guys under the justification that "it's different when we do it, and if you challenge us, I'll put my subsidized legal department to work burying you."
Copyright needing significant overhaul or abolition doesn't detract from that state of affairs, I hope we can agree?
Have you considered not using their services if you don't want to pay with your data in exchange for their computing power, data storage, engineering time, etc?
> yet most sites still attempt to load FB tracking scripts.
(Emphasis mine)
So yes, they do, and all that's irrelevant victim blaming because it's really unacceptable that this is something the user should have to bother with. It also requires an unusually high level of technical competence just to not get stalked, which is likewise unreasonable.
if that means they've set up auto-responders with the poop emoji, but only to certain news outlets, that's even funnier than just responding with it to everybody
Dumbphones are 4G. 4G voice service requires VoLTE but mobile operators have to whitelist phone models, the phone has to have the IMS in the internal database... all in all don't expect VoLTE to work. So voice downgrades to 3G. But 3G is being shut down by many operators and more to come. So voice downgrades to 2G, but 2G has a very low limit of concurrent calls, let's say a few dozen. So it's possible that your dumbphone won't work at all.
> But 3G is being shut down by many operators and more to come. So voice downgrades to 2G, but 2G has a very low limit of concurrent calls, let's say a few dozen. So it's possible that your dumbphone won't work at all.
2G is being shutdown too (IIRC, I had a 2G pay-as-you-go phone that stopped working years ago), and it would be surprising to me that a carrier would shutdown 3G before 2G.
It makes sense because many specialised IoT appliances are 2G-only. At least that's the way it's happening in the EU. For example in Spain 3G will be phased out in 2025 while 2G will be phased out in 2030.
There's more to it than that. I had a model where voice would work on both networks but SMS would only work on one. The only contacts app you could use also relied on a proprietary gateway, and took a minute to open on the other network.
Also, updates to SMS implementations eventually broke SMS on the good network.
There's a lot of overstated FUD about the moc. It's a preprocessor that expands a few macro strings into relatively simple boilerplate C++. Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++.
The macro incantations aren't massively complicated and mostly are simple labels placed in header files; body code rarely uses anything moc-related these days.
Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years within and on top of C++ on their platform, Qt's moc is barely a footnote.
I respect not liking it, and I totally get the appeal of doing the same thing with tools built directly into the language (which to this day aren't fully comparable, and are mostly recent - check into the verdigris project for a solid and interesting take on attempting this), but it's a reasonably straight-forward approach to the problems it solves.
> Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++.
It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it.
> Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years (...)
Microsoft did a fantastic job with it's GUI frameworks. WPF is a stellar example of getting most things right. It's astounding how views are so trivial with WPF. XAML voodoo has it's critics but no one praising Qt would ever dare point a finger at XAML.
> It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it.
You have to compare those drawbacks directly to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths.
Yes, perhaps optimizing the compilers would be nicer.
> You have to compare those drawbacks to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths.
Maybe so, but this is not what my comment is about. What I'm saying is that MS has made much more invasive changes to C++ as a language than Qt has in its platforms or frameworks, e.g. compiler-backed extended and different behavior. Or look at C++/CX (since phased out, thankfully).
There's a lot of "If you're using Qt you're not using C++!!1" FUD to confuse newbies, while it's much easier to inadvertently write non-portable C++ with many other frameworks. Yes, it's a whatboutism (which I hope to have compensated for with many other detailed comments in the thread), but this double standard tends to irk me.
> You have to compare those drawbacks directly to the alternatives, though.
It's ok to claim that Qt's MOC optimizes for developer experience,and all other tradeoffs are acceptable.
> I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths.
This doesn't really matter. It's not just the MOC. Using Qt UI form files forces UIC into the picture, which also fails to be cached.
> Yes, perhaps optimizing the compilers would be nicer.
The compiler is not the problem. Obviously. WPF also uses code generators and it's not plagued with long build times.
> Maybe so, but this is not what my comment is about. What I'm saying is that MS has made much more invasive changes to C++ as a language than Qt has in its platforms or frameworks, e.g. compiler-backed extended and different behavior. Or look at C++/CX (since phased out, thankfully).
This reads like whataboutism, and fails to address Qt's problems.
> There's a lot of "If you're using Qt you're not using C++!!1" FUD to confuse newbies
I never saw that once, not do I understand why that is relevant.
moc is the part of C++ the standards folks didn't see a need to integrate, but it should have always been there. Since all it does is take syntactic sugar and output more C++, it's clearly C++.
of course, C++ eventually gained the ability to implement moc natively using a more general solution.
to me, moc and the Qt base classes sort of round out C++ to me in a way that is better than the alternatives. I can imagine an entire world of application development based on Qt C++ base, and in fact I've written a few network servers this way. Simply having event loops with message passing built-in makes programming that much more enjoyable for me.
I have seen the comparison video and I am unimpressed. A company with the legacy in software development that Microsoft has should be ashamed of how slow both versions load and how jittery everything seems.
It is 2023, how can they find it acceptable that loading is so slow that UI elements appear one by one? That's something I expect from a computer running Windows 95 on a 386DX.
You probably wouldn't get performance this bad back in 95 since we used to build native apps for the desktop. Unlike these days were a bunch of dingbats are pushing the js agenda beyond the limits of whats reasonable acceptable.
This is an excellent summary of the problem. The sad thing is that most users consider this perfectly normal and acceptable, and even users who have used computers for 30+ years seem to think these sluggish, crap "apps" are perfectly acceptable. It's bonkers.
> A company with the legacy in software development that Microsoft has should be ashamed of how slow both versions load and how jittery everything seems.
That ship sailed long ago after they excreted the turd that is Windows 8 and its successors.
