The Rust backend code is shared between all platforms (Desktop, Android, iOS and Web). This wasn't feasible with the Python code.
From an Android (AnkiDroid) perspective, it's allowed us to remove most of our code which was manually ported from the Python backend, with guaranteed 1:1 compatibility with upstream.
We've moved from being years behind upstream to being able to release in tandem with the Desktop app.
We also migrated to common screens written in Svelte, to reduce the maintenance burden of UI changes for screens with high churn (Deck Options being the primary example).
that's not proof - it may also be intelligent enough to have produce similar expressions without the original training data.
Not to mention that having knowledge of copyrighted material is not in violation of any known copyright law - after all, human brains also have the knowledge after learning it. The model, therefore, cannot be in violation regardless of what data was used to train it (as long as that data was not obtained illegally).
If someone _chooses_ to use the LLM to reproduce harry potter, or some GPL'ed code, then that person would be in violation of the relevant copyright laws. The copyright owner needs to pursue that person, rather than the owner of the LLM. In the exact same way that if someone used Microsoft Word to reproduce harry potter, microsoft would not have any liability.
> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
> I got into tech because I wanted to help make the world better, not worse. I can confidentially say after working in the industry for over 20 years, that it doesn't do that. That's not what it is. It's not what it's ever been about.
I can confidently say that it does. Sturgeon's law applies: 90% of everything is crap, but there are pockets of good, and they make all the difference.
What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise?
From my IBEW recollections, this was probably true for our membership.
>there are pockets of good, and they make all the difference
Most-definitely. It took me my first four decades to realize this, but having spent the majority of my adult life blue collar, I certainly empathize with burning out (better than e.g. my lawyer/tech brothers "just lazy"). We cannot all be on good teams, it's statistically impossible, but surely more of oughtta.
> What do you think of Price's Law, which suggests that the squareroot of people in most organizations perform half the work (e.g. 3 of 9 ; 10 of 100 ; 50 of 2500)? Put less-specifically, is the majority primarily net-neutral/-negative, productivity-wise?
The way I think about it is kind of like security: 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur.
Likewise with productivity. Sure half the work might be done by a small minority but you can’t grow or sustain a business by trying to predict who those people are, especially as that minority changes over its lifecycle. Nor can you reliably predict which support roles are actually keystone roles without which the productive people are useless.
> 99.99% of the time security guards are just standing around not doing anything or patrolling. They’re still needed even though they technically don’t do anything because there’s no way to predict when and where a breach will occur.
Security guards, like system administrators who keep the lights on and don't directly contribute to revenue, are insurance, something you pay for that you hope you never have to use. Those who don't see the value are taking risk management seriously.
I spent a couple years apprenticing in Texas data centers (electrician)...
>99.99% of the time [we were] just standing around not doing anything
So much time I voluntarily spent sorting parts / carts, in preparation for the few hours each week we were actually needed — most just dove into their phones, idly — and even I wouldn't have considered myself in that over-productive squareroot. Everything was dual-feed power, so most of the year was spent unrushed.
But those few times of year where managed-risk pushed its limits... were certainly all hands on deck experiences.
This perception is more a result of humans' powerful negativity bias. Negative news and views get orders of magnitude more engagement and propagation than positive ones.
When someone uses the Internet to do something positive, like learn something or make something or contact an old friend, they typically don't say a thing. Nobody talks about this. Everyone talks about all the negative uses. They capture our attention better.
This bias is something that's probably been selected for through humanity's evolutionary history. There's a saying: "if you mistake a bush for a lion, you're fine, but if you mistake a lion for a bush you're dead." You are the descendent of paranoid people who made the first mistake, not the second. Being hypervigilant about dangers is going to be adaptive on average in most environments.
Some devices don't have browsers, some are locked-down and only support one app store, or sideloading via adb, sometimes the UX is better (SideQuest for the Meta Quest).
> What do I need to do to make a difference, and how much time will this take?
EU or US?
> what's the path? Legislation?
Send them a letter explaining why this is bad for you. Keep it strictly factual and ideally concise. Copy Google’s legal [1] and any relevant digital or markets regulators. (If in the US, don’t forget your state regulators.)
Wait two weeks and then call the elected. Make sure they’re aware, and talk through your options. Send a letter thanking them for the call, incorporating any new information and actions they said they would take, and copy all of the previous parties again.
More work: reach out to other top developers and organise an open letter. This will be hard because everyone wants to include their pet issue and everyone will fight over scope and language.
what about EU?
ChatControl has a website, but I am having trouble finding out who the hell to contact for the requirement for google play integrity in our goverment apps (which was recently changed from requiring hardware integrity, as graphene can only do the latter.), both national and comunitary, and whoever is in charge of the repositories is not responding to the tens of issues opened for it.
Now there's also this new requirement, and it's shocking the EU hasn't responded yet. Weren't we supposed to make ourselves more independent from US technology? But i wouldn't be surprised someone would be lobbying on google's behalf to convince the politicians that "trust me bro, google play is more secure"
Thanks for the link. I have neither the time nor inclination to be a figurehead, but I can have conversations once I feel there's a reasonable/achievable outcome. I'll put some thought into it.
You can't do anything with respect to legislators. In their eyes, your privacy and the consumer's rights are less important than some grandma, who lost a large sum of money by installing malware after ignoring multiple warnings.
If you want to make a difference, try to communicate with someone from OEM companies. Google is making their phones inferior and they'll loose money and market share because of it.
After this change, "I can install NewPipe and Ad blockers" will become a major selling point for Chinese phones among large and profitable segments of the population. And that high-end manufacturers might as well give up and let Apple take that part of the market. If OEMs can be made to understand that, that's going to be the end of this initiative.
> can't do anything with respect to legislators. In their eyes, your privacy and the consumer's rights are less important than some grandma
You’re correct, but for the wrong reasons. Privacy framings don’t work because people who care about privacy are unusually politically nihilistic and/or lazy. I’ve worked on privacy legislation. I’ve also worked on other laws. Nobody calls or writes about the former. With the latter, it was almost trivial to demonstrate to the elected that there was real political capital in embracing the issue.
Well, depending on the sort of other laws you've supported, that shouldn't be very surprising.
The special interest of a particular group always result in far more intense support than any law that benefits the public at large. And privacy is usually a general concern.
Also, am I the only one who finds the idea that you need to demonstrate the existence of political capital to elected politicians concerning? (As opposed to persuading them that it's the right thing to do.) I don't want to sidetrack the whole discussion, but this makes me doubt the future of western democracy in a hundred different ways.
JumpCrisscross's reply was really good, and I would like to add additionally that US congress representatives and senators usually maintain local offices in cities in their constituency, and a visit to these offices (usually you can make an appointment by calling them) to discuss issues in person is a very powerful way to be heard. If you aren't in the US, you'll need to find out if your government has anything similar.
> But on topic: why not create docker.io/bsi and let /bitnami as is without new updates?
If people are relying on you for automatic security updates, and you've decided to no longer provide these updates [for free], users should opt in to accept the risk.
This would normally require user action (after a period of warnings/information), and having the fix look 'obviously' unsafe (`/bitnami ` ->`/bitnamilegacy`) feels reasonable.
Feel free to get in touch if you're interested:
https://github.com/ankidroid/Anki-Android/blob/main/CONTRIBU...