For everyone with a peloton, you can flash the bike with an aftermarket software.

It was similar in scope to the meme about holding your poop in to impress a new suiter, if you remember that. A silly meme that had forum wide appeal. It gave the site an early Internet charm vibe to me that made me fall in love

I think it is, as it lacks bot detection, not quite as bad as Reddit, but you see people make arguments which sound good but don’t stay on topic.

A big factor is the lack of barriers. They already have the complex software from other platforms, the only new code is to alter the interaction scripts. The “make post” script for Facebook becomes the "make post " script for Lemmy. The problem domains are so similar I bet you can use the same numerical sociology (a good topic to look up to learn about how governments make these bots) models/code across the platforms. Though you may need a few extra features to accurately express our love of Linux, star trek, and beans.

One of us!

The original post in this chain talked about ethics, I was continuing that conversation.

In terms of free use, I feel the collection/aggregation of the data is a work in itself. You are taking a greater portion than the author specified you can take. Courts have ruled this does not constitute free use when people used yahoo’s market data. How is it any different now when people are using orders of magnitudes more data.

Because there is a standard way for people to make their consent known. Just because you ignore someone withholding you consent doesn’t mean you are free morally.

That would probably be more expensive than just paying companies. But it is morally different because a human did visit their website so their good will was not violated as they expressed this consent when they published the website.

Yes I agree your use style could be immoral based on the agreement your transaction specifies. But if you’ve agreed your payment is to access their material then you have consent.

You asked if it’s moral, this is irrelevant

That’s exactly what robot.txt is… they spell out that they don’t want you to access this site with an automated system.

Every web request costs someone money. If you aren’t paying them you are being provided a service. They’ve given you knowledge/ material in their possession free of charge. You are taking advantage of that good will by using the content for purposes not intended. That is a moral failing.

To be clear the ownership of the material is not important, just the access is immoral, as the harm is already done.

Ill add the caveat that it can be moral if they’ve specifically told you you can via the websites robot.txt file which websites of consequence all have. But the assumption has to be they don’t intend this because that is how consent works.

Think they mean a Variational AutoEncoder

You should ask Trump, he is a stable genius

Archeologists: fascinating, it’s a grocery list!

AI researcher: dangit this letter keeps demolishing my roc curve…

What I did (a few years ago now) was add http authentication to the ports where I ran my personal projects and left my projects port public. Don’t think I have to worry about recruiters brute forcing a password, hah.

I think it adds a little credibility to the fact that it’s actually you.