With my MOC3 work, I should clarify that my goal is not to clone any software from Live2D, including their SDK. I have no intention to provide a "drop-in replacement" for anything.

I believe prioritizing that would be the wrong mindset and goal for this kind of project.

There is value in drop-in compatibility layers! However, when you set out to do that, it means most likely your motivation is to get out of paying Live2D for their SDK license, in existing use cases.

If you are not already a Live2D customer, there is no need for that.

Why clone any interface, UI, API, or anything else from Live2D otherwise? That would presume that those designs are the best way of doing things. They almost certainly aren't!

What matters is being compatible with the file format, not cloning the ecosystem around it.

Every sign has a story ☕️

#coffee #knakworstwasser

I'm about to use Marxist terminology. That's immediately going to trigger some of you or cause you to ignore what I'm saying. If it does you should perhaps question why.

It's really hard for me to see the "AI Revolution" (more accurately the "LLMs in Scooby Doo masks" hype-train) as something other than what the Bourgeoisie think is a continuance and perhaps final chapter of the Industrial Revolution.

Having fallen for their own marketing, the Bourgeoisie are gleefully trying to further wrestle the means of production away from the proletariat; by their belief this time perhaps totally and permanently. They have attempted this before, but were vexed with the incommunicability of natural talent, the uneven distribution of innate capabilities, the toilsome and slow transfer of academic knowledge, and the difficulty and high resource expense of developing labor skills.

The great false promise of current generation "AI", to the Bourgeoisie, is not that it will liberate us, the proletariat laborer and knowledge worker classes, but that it will finally strip us of the one thing the Bourgeoisie cannot steal entirely by commodifying and rendering fungible the last mechanisms of production that resist immediate acquisition by capital - skill and knowledge.

The AI hypetrain aimed at the general public is propaganda intended to ease and hide that theft until it is sufficiently complete that all leverage is lost.

The saving grace, this time, is that the current elated technocratic elite are completely misled about what these technologies are capable of, and progress and adoption is not proceeding as rapidly as they anticipated because they can't tell the difference between three LLMs in a trench coat and Gen AI.

It should be clear by now, though, that they will expend all effort possible in pursuit of further subjugating us in this way, and that ethically production of the technology they demand is something akin to a new variety of class treachery.

Their blunder has bought us time, but only if we seize upon the opportunity. We cannot stop the development of these technologies- we can only at best slow them. We can, however, use this opportunity to develop class solidarity movements and labor/knowledge worker unions with which we can exert collective leverage for when their fever dream of unfettered exploitation arrives.

The only proof you need that I'm right is that they built these mechanisms through outright wholesale theft of our work and the collective cultural and artistic inheritance of humanity itself, and they expect to be praised for selling a poorly simulated and artificial version back to us as if it were the same thing.

The sound of meowing 🐾

by purrinink

Good morning from Minneapolis, the City of Lakes, the Mill City, the great City of Cereal in the upper Midwest.

Quite early Thursday morning it was 68℉; light winds; overcast skies; visibility 10 miles at the airport.

- Widespread rain showers expected today.

- A break from the heat & humidity over the next 7 days. Below normal temperatures are likely with high temperatures in the 70s.
—NWS Chanhassen

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.
— https://www.gutenberg.org/files/36/36-h/36-h.htm

#mnwx #Minneapolis #Hinterlandia

6502 kids: mom can we get multiply instruction?

6502 mom: we have multiply instruction at home

multiply instruction at home: *bit shift and addition*

Here's is a question of fundamental importance: how do you pronounce "consortium"?

I've noticed that British folk tend to say "con-sor-tee-um" while Americans and French say "con-sor-shum".

My trusty Chambers dictionary says both are acceptable, and also gives "con-sor-shee-um" (which I don't think I've ever heard...).

So how do you pronounce "consortium"?