Handy markdown guide for lemmy:

https://join-lemmy.org/docs/users/02-media.html

Fancy Font Maker for Lemmy Titles:

https://buddystat.com/tools/lemmy-font-generator

  • 50 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 4th, 2025

help-circle












  • The Document Foundation’s official reply came from Italo Vignoli, a founder Collabora lists as having already exited TDF membership.

    He has kept it short, confirming that the removals happened, pointing to TDF’s recently adopted Community Bylaws as the basis. Those bylaws include a clause requiring anyone affiliated with a company in an active legal dispute with TDF to step down from membership.

    Link to those bylaws from Jan 15

    https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/vote-adopt-version-1-of-community-bylaws/13472

    Quote from that link [bylaws] above

    Members involved in legal claims for endangering the Foundation, eg. by means of putting the charitable status at risk, or misusing TDF’s funds, or by damaging any of TDF’s assets, or by attempting to do any of these must relinquish their membership by means of notification to the MC. If the legal claim, in relation to the mentioned matters, involves a company/organisation then also their affiliated members must relinquish their membership.

    Back to the original linked article:

    The stated rationale is that past situations saw people put their employer’s interests ahead of the foundation’s, and the clause exists to stop that happening again. The specifics of the legal dispute between TDF and Collabora are not mentioned by either party.

    TDF also makes clear that a membership revocation is not a ban from contributing, with the project remaining open to anyone, and expects Collabora to keep contributing “when the time comes.”

    So without details, all the article really details is that this happened. The why is murky. It seems the TDF is trying to protect itself, but there’s no description of Collabra or TDFs legal dispute.







  • As I understand, that’s a decent analogy.

    They have been measured in situ only on Earth and Titan, although they are believed to exist on other planets like Mars.

    4 Discussion and Conclusions The recent findings by Cardnell et al. [2016] highlighted the large conductivity differences in the Martian atmosphere depending on solar illumination. Our simulations show that dayside conditions do not allow SR to develop, while nightside conditions, presenting conductivities 2 orders of magnitude lower, do (Figure 1).

    To summarize, we report numerical simulations of the SR to be expected at Mars, based on the latest modeling efforts of the Martian atmosphere-ionosphere chemical interactions and properties. The day-night asymmetry was never addressed before in SR studies at Mars, and our study highlights its importance for assessing the main SR parameters.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071635

    I wonder if this sort of data could help in the search for potentially inhabitable planets sometime in the future?



  • RegularJoe@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world•“ChatGPT said this” Is Lazy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    ChatGPT isn’t on the team.

    Except that when someone pastes “ChatGPT thinks that {wall of AI-generated text}”

    That person put ChatGPT on the team. And if there was no human input, the competition is free to use that and mock it word for word. Use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to convince your team that anyone can use that, including your competition, if it is published.

    The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report on AI and copyrightability reaffirms the longstanding principle that copyright protection is reserved for works of human authorship. Outputs created entirely by generative artificial intelligence (AI), with no human creative input, are not eligible for copyright protection.

    https://natlawreview.com/article/copyright-offices-latest-guidance-ai-and-copyrightability