Chris Ellis @intrbiz@bergamot.social

@dick_turpin Very much so. TBH their PR has been pretty prickly for a long time.

They seem to think giving customers no information and no detail over the supply chain issues is a virtue, rather than exceptionally frustrating.

It's just a bit sad that they are needlessly harming the good work they do do, for the lack of listening.

@dick_turpin It was a little tone deaf for sure. But I think their response to the criticism and their further doubling down on it was the bigger error.

@bigcalm In general I'm not a fan of CSS frameworks which end up adding 300 classes to every element. Especially when you end up with things like: <table class="table"/>.

I've used http://getskeleton.com/ a couple of times and love it's simplicity.

@Raspberry_Pi@raspberrypi.social A welcome update. I had an order with CPC, which they've bizarrely cancelled without communication after 14 months. Pretty much had to resort to just paying inflated prices for any hope of being able to try and complete my cluster server project.

Went to see Aussie Floyd on Monday at Symphony Hall in Birmingham. Excellent gig, great music and amazing light show and animation. Would really recommend for any Pink Floyd fan out there.

@bigcalm the middle?

@SimonB what needs?

@breinbaas yeh. I think 'to connect to' the words that do the heavy lifting.

I've always considered applications using the 'postgres' default database not to be best practice, especially when they are authing as the 'postgres' user.

Do other #postgresql people agree with that?

@deavid

Yes, plus also sentiments echoed in "Humans".

@deavid

Interesting point. Which could well hinge on the definition of 'use'.

This seems to usually be tested in court by how similar the outputs are to other existing works, often siding with the rights holders of the existing works.

I don't think that people will accept the view that a machine could be as 'lossy' as a human.

@deavid

Should the developer of the algorithm be considered to have a right to the resultant work?

Should the rights holders of the training data set be considered to have a right to the resultant work?

Or should the 'artist' who combined them and generated the work?

I don't think there is an easy answer here.

But I do think it's too simplistic to say that the licences of the works used to train the AI model can be ignored, which seems to be Github's current stance.