I grew up a windows user, as was my father before me. I first started with Linux in my teens, initially on Raspbian as I was gifted a raspberry pi 2b with a camera, and I wanted to try goofing around with python and computer vision (which was the style at the time.) Once I entered university, I dual booted Windows 7 and Linux Mint, since my professor suggested moving to Linux for C++ homework to make things simpler. I was scared of jumping to a new desktop OS due to my upbringing, so I couldn't abandon Windows, not yet anyway. Following that I had a cheap Summer fling with Kali as it was a requirement for a cyber security course I took. This replaced my Mint install. After college I got into self-hosting, and my server ran Debian for stability (and still does to this day), however I was still scared of leaving the safety of my littlr Windows garden I called home. But then Windows betrayed me by putting ads on my taskbar, and I got fed up. I installed EndeavorOS on my main machine which was a laptop. I immediately fell head over heels for the AUR, and not needing a deep understanding of linux during the install was a plus. I got comfy with the ins and outs of linux over the next year and a half or so, and when I finally went to build myself a new desktop PC, I made the switch to Arch. It's been great, and I felt like I understood all the decisions I made during the install. That was 6 months ago. If Arch ever fails me catastrophically,(which would be pretty hard as I am using an os snapshot manager, and backing those snapshots up to my server) I will move to either Debian or Mint for stability, as I am kind of tired of hopping around at this point.

In this case being more verbose makes sense. The current public-knowledge definition doesn't cover this case, so it makes sense to describe exactly what happened.

If it runs on a computer, it's literally "just logic and RNG". It's all transistors, memory, and an RNG.

Sure, but this is a bad faith argument. You can say this about anything. Everything is made up of other stuff, it's what someone has done to combine or use those elements that matters. You could extend this to anything proprietary. Manufacturing equipment is just a handful of metals, rubbers, and plastics. However, the context in which someone uses those materials is what matters when determining if copyright laws have been broken.

The data used to train an AI model is copyrighted. It's impossible for something to exist without copyright (in the past 100 years). Even public domain works had copyright at some point.

If the data used to train the model was copyrighted data acquired without explicit permission from the data owners, it itself cannot be copyrighted. You can't take something copyrighted by someone else, put it in a group of stuff that is also copyrighted by others, and claim you have some form of ownership over that collection of works.

This is not correct. Every artist ever has been trained with copyrighted works, yet they don't have to recite every single picture they've seen or book they've ever read whenever they produce something.

You speak confidently, but I don't think you understand the problem area enough to act as an authority on the topic.

Laws can be different for individuals and companies. Hell, laws of use can be different for two different individuals, and the copyright owner actually gets a say in how their thing can be used by different groups of people. For instance, for a 3d art software, students can use it for free. However, their use agreement is that they cannot profit off of anything they make. Non students have to pay, but can sell their work without consequences. Companies have to pay even more, but often times get bulk discounts if they are buying licenses for their whole team.

Artists have something of value: AI training data. We know this is valuable to AI training companies, because artists are getting reached out to by AI companies, asking to sell them the rights to train their model on their data. If AI companies just use an artist's AI training data without their permission, it's stealing the potential revenue they could have made selling it to a different AI company. Taking away revenue potential on someone's work is the basis for having violated copyright/fair use laws.

Nintendo games are excellent games. Some of the highest quality games among AAA studios. What sucks is Nintendo as a company

Dumpster fire in my ass

I've seen so many of these I have gained the ability to read them straight on. In this case it doesn't matter, but I always feel like I've got one over the meme creator when it says something like "You look dumb holding your phone like that"

I think your understanding of generative AI is incorrect. It's not just "logic and RNG" It is using training data (read as both copyrighted and uncopyrighted material) to come up with a model of "correctness" or "expectedness". If you then give it a pattern, (read as question or prompt) it checks its "expectedness" model for whatever should come next. If you ask it "how many cups in a pint" it will check the most common thing it has seen after that exact string of words it in its training data: 2. If you ask for a picture of something "in the style of van gogh", it will spit out something with thick paint and swirls, as those are the characteristics of the pictures in its training data that have been tagged with "Van Gogh". These responses are not brand new, they are merely a representation of the training data that would most work as a response to your request. In this case, if any of the training data is copyrighted, then attribution must be given, or at the very least permission to use this data must be given by the current copyright holder.

I hold a firm belief he's trying to temporarily crash the market, so 47 and all his friends can "buy the dip", and then he's going to back out of his terrifs, the market will go back up (most likely not all the way up) and they'll now have a bunch of stock they got on the cheap

I understand where you're coming from. I myself prefer using a terminal for most things, and use arch (btw) for the PC I game on. I understand that learning Linux is the best move for folks, but I don't see that being an option, at least initially, for people on the fence.

I know that, from a Linux user's perspective, it is the wrong move, but I have plenty of friends that want a "no terminal, gaming ready" distro before they make the move. I see it more as a first step, removing the barrier for making the switch to Linux. Once they are already there, it's much easier to convince themselves to learn Linux a bit deeper if needed over time.

I don't know, maybe I'm just naive and hopeful, but there are a good number of my friends that I think will make the switch to Linux that wouldn't have without SteamOS.

I think it'll feel like pop os. Pretty much set up for gaming right out of the box, but anything deeper and you're forced to touch the terminal. What I do think it has going for it however is the publicity of Steam, plus a promise on Steam's part to continue to dump a bunch of resources in to making it a better experience. I'm not expecting mass migrations, but it will likely be what gets all the folks on the fence to switch over, at least among gamers

I mean, sure you can do this, but you have to also sympathize with the folks that have years if not decades of experience in a program/suite, and that experience is what they use to market themselves. Like, in a perfect world, everyone could make the switch to FOSS alternatives, but it's not so cut and dry for those who can't spend up to years of their personal time to just get back to being as efficient as they were with the other, just to not support a scummy company. I've been moving pretty much entirely over to FOSS for everything I do, but it's been years in the making, and substantial effort on my part. And I have it easy, since I work in software development. We in the FOSS community can't expect all others to do the same.

Watching you reason this out was fun

Billionaires

Ah, I see. If you look up "Github Desktop" online it should have a Linux version. I haven't actually used it outside of Windows, but I can't imagine it's missing committing/pushing to github, that's the whole point of the app! And yeah, github can be pretty daunting initially, there's a lot going on and it didn't feel intuitive to me initially either. I wish I had better advice other than just stick with it, but that's what I did so I don't know of any good guides

Oh, I assumed you were using github, my bad. There probably isn't a good desktop app for git outside of github.

Mate reread my comment. I'm not the one being hostile

They aren't worried about adblocking, but the cookie/tracker blockers that come with adblockers. They gotta know everything about you ya know

Gaslighting? I'm pretty sure the term you're looking for is gaslamping. Don't worry, it's a pretty common mistake for people to make.

Git does have a desktop version with a GUI, but the CLI is much simpler

ffmpeg is one of the things where I prefer the CLI. It's crazy powerful, and does some insane things in pretty simple commands. I've seen a meme that says half the internet is just wrappers for ffmpeg, and I'm inclined to agree.

Also, as an arch user (btw) pacman / AUR are a much better experience than having to hunt down the installers for everything online.

Similarly, the right CLI tools make searching for files across my entire computer much simpler and way faster than I could ever do with a GUI