jQuery is a lot smaller and less nebulous than its competitors (looking at you,~~React~~ literally every JavaScript framework).

Jquery was what was popular when i learned js. I'm kinda glad it was, honestly: jQuery is a little unique in that it doesn't have magic to it the way js frameworks do. Everything you can do in jQuery, you can do in vanilla JavaScript pretty easily. With, say, React, how is a newcomer supposed to understand how a series of React components become HTML?

So jQuery kept it "real" for me. Fewer abstractions between me and the HTML meant it was easier for me to connect the dots as a self taught developer.

As for how it's changed, it's more any how vanilla JavaScript has changed. A lot of the things that made jQuery so much easier and cleaner than vanilla are now baked in, like document.querySelector(), element.classList, createElement(), addEventListener()... It had Ajax methods that, before jQuery, were a tremendous pain in the ass.

jQuery was great, but, you basically had to use it with something like PHP, because it had no back end. So when angular came out (and a few others that aren't around anymore and I've forgotten), it allowed you to replace both PHP and jQuery, and developers rejoiced.

Why did they rejoice? I'm not actually sure there was reason to, objectively speaking. As developers, we like new tech, especially if that new tech requires us to think about code differently, even if, in retrospect, it's a hard argument to make to say that, if we had just stuck with PHP and jQuery we would be somehow worse off than we are with React.

Of course, in tech, when a new system changes how we think, sometimes (not as often as we'd like) it helps us reconsider problems and find much more elegant solutions. So, would we have all the innovations we have today if all these js frameworks has never existed? Obviously we can't really answer that -- but it's a toke of copium for when we get nostalgic for the PHP/jQuery days.

(Also, for you newer people reading this, you should probably be aware that the PHP/jQuery mini-stack is still very quietly used. You'll definitely see it, especially in php-baaed COTS.)

The Bibles have nothing to do with his campaign. In the context of the Bibles, he's just a dude selling bibles, he's not a representative of his campaign, the money isn't going to his campaign, and it's not being spent on his campaign.

To be specific, there's no law against a church giving money to a political figure; there are laws against donations to political causes -- and political campaigns are political causes. Trump the person can sell whatever he wants and use that money however he wants, or, in this case, license his name to whatever, etc.

There's no reason a person can't pay for their own campaign, and there's no reason someone with more money than sense can't just give another person free money with no strings. We don't tend to this because we don't tend to have candidates that could believably get money from people for reasons unrelated to their campaign -- with any career politician, it would be a transparent pretense. But not with Trump, he legitimately can get people to buy whatever, because it's him they like, not just him-as-president. The shoes, the Bible, the steaks -- they're proof of that fact.

The money he's getting from the Bibles is not political money and he's not spending it on his campaign. There's just no there there.

Trump's debts are not "political," especially the fraud verdict (the $400m one) which is his biggest problem rn. There's no reason a person can't sell a Bible and use it to pay for the judgement against him for fraud. Like, that's a weird sentence, but it's true.

His campaign is definitely short on money, but, financially, his main concern right now is the fraud judgement, and after that the rape/defamation judgement, then maybe the lawyers next? Tho he probably doesn't plan on paying them. So, yeah, Trump's going to need some money for his campaign, but he needs to keep the Trump in Trump Tower or he's completely fucked -- legally, financially, and even politically.

Look, I hate him too, but this is just not money laundering.

Like, seriously, this. "Vote for me and I'll help make laws that you like!"

This is literally what democracy is supposed to be doing. If this was what Trump was actually doing here, it might be the first time he's just followed regular principles of politics.

Ethics are interesting because you can ignore them. It's like, ethics exist within you regardless of whether you agree to them; if you don't listen to that little voice, it gets easier and easier to ignore it. To put that in practical terms: murdering someone is pretty ethically difficult. Murdering a second time is less ethically difficult. It's like we build a climate around ourselves; the more you listen to your ethical beliefs, the more repugnant the idea of ignoring them becomes.

That said, I'm not sure I'm on board with you on RHCP -- but that's maybe just me. I used to listen to them a lot in jr high (I'm old) when blood sugar sex magic had just come out. And while your opinion is totally valid, for me, like, I never thought he was much of an ethical role model. His lyrics are pretty misogynistic. (And, not great regardless, from a "objective artistic/poetic" perspective.) So like yeah he's not a great person, but he never pretended to be, so to find out he isn't doesn't change much.

(As opposed to, say, Jowling Kowling Rowling, who used to talk about hating bigotry, but then turned out to be a super terrible bigot.)

Flea, on the other hand -- I've never looked into him. I'm also a bassist and his influence on my bass education is so deep that I'm afraid to find out if he's toxic lol. But he's been in a band with Anthony Keidis for like 40 years, so, he's probably not perfect.

(I'm not a slap or funk bassist, but what I learned from Flea was how to feel it. You can't play Flea's bass lines mechanically, they literally don't sound correct; you have to feel the vibe, the groove has to move your fingers, not the time signature. That dude, ffs I hope he's not an asshole, because he's fucking incredible.)

Though IDK -- after long careers together, from what I understand, people tend to see each other less.

For example, after the whole Me Too thing started, I heard an interview with Bob Weinstein, Harvey's brother, the two of them started Miramax together and were basically partners. But he knew his brother was a piece of shit, and, at that time a few years ago, hadn't actually spoken to him in "many years." He didn't dwell on the topic, he just said that, basically, and his tone was like, obviously disgusted, but he didn't want to spend the time talking about that, so he didn't.

He wasn't exactly going to snitch his own brother into prison, and that's asking a bit too much imo, but it shows ethical strength to not slip into that same kind of toxicity, especially when it's so close to you, and probably so easy.

there's a term for appropriating the struggle of an oppressed group the way you just did, but I can't remember what it is. Anyway - I feel like you're assuming everyone is talking about you when we're not... If we don't like something that you like, you can just mind your own business...?

If there's a post about someone doing something bad, and people talk about how bad it is, but you think it's good, are we all supposed to stop talking about it because you showed up?

What's the deal with nixos? I keep seeing people who love it, but from a quick Google I didn't really get what was so exciting about it.

I remember that moment. It was like, halfway through the sentence he was like, "I don't want the world to have a clip of me saying 'shame on me,' what do I do..." I wonder if he ever figured it out. Because what you don't do, is what he did, just kinda stammer and stumble in a much more clippable way.

If you're serious about the Internet you'll just ping icann and get the indexes directly, search the content, and use the results. You casuals might still use Google but I've built my own engine, and it literally only takes a few hours to get a search result.

Also, that person calls themselves royalty in training so if the issue is Google's hegemony then I feel like there might be some cognitive dissonance.

Personally while I think all states should be abolished and all resources should be shared on a global scale, I also think that the company that serves my house with Internet should be forced to compete so that we (the people in my city) can get the benefits of capitalism: improved prices and service.

I also believe that the latter is actually a step towards the former - though it's just a guess.

First off, I'm going to stop writing out "computer generated imagery" and start saying CGI, please understand I mean this kind of AI art we're taking about, not avengers movies special effects.i know it's already a taken acronym but I hate calling it AI, so, until we come up with something better...

Some go through great lengths to try to take down their works from image boards, others simply accept it as being a reality of the internet.

A big part of what I'm saying is that the CGI issue is just this, but weirder. And I'm not saying it's not weird - it definitely is - but this particular concern, to me, seems disingenuous because of the above quote. All CGI does is change some of the venues people in group A scour.

Regarding credit - this is kind of sticky. There are two (well, more than 2, but 2 relevant here) parts of IP law: copyright and license.

Copyright is a default, you-don't-have-to-do-anything protection against people profiting off of your work. I right click/save your photo, I put it on my site and sell copies for $50. This is legally actionable. It's not criminal - but it's actionable. Profit is a requirement here; if I share your work with my friend - or even post it on my non-monetized website - there's not really anything you can do. I can even tell everyone it's mine - copyright law does not care. You would have to be able to prove that I'm profiting somehow or else I'll be able to use a fair use defense. (And it will be a legitimate use of fair use.)

License law governs our ability to allow people to use our work. Legally, we're allowed to write contracts and have others sign them which outline parameters of permission. These are legally actionable - but only if the other party signs. Most of what we see in terms of DMCA takedowns is people who are profiting off the work; the copyright owner basically says, take my shit down, or but a license for $x. Both parties need to agree to a licensing agreement - but, again, most of the time, it's not really optional, because the person is infringing on the copyright.

If the person isn't infringing on copyright, they don't have to do anything. This is what fair use is for: we all have the right to learn and grow and share from each other's work - with the exception that, if your try to make money off it, that's not going to fly.

So, unless there's copyright infringement, an artist has to right to demand a name check or a link back. I mean, you can ask, but I can just say no.

Profit is vital here - if a person isn't making money off their CGI, legally, they're in the clear.

But the thing is, the models one uses to create CGI with stable diffusion or whatever, they have their own licenses - the kind that are like terms of service. "You can use this, but by doing so you're agreeing to the license terms." And models that have been trained on "illegitimate" content have licenses that bar the user from (directly) profiting from the work.

(This is why patreon is the main source of income for infringers - and patreon shuts them down if you complain, even without any legal documentation. But, again, I feel this community is microscopic. Sure, it's sketchy and shitty, but it's on such a minute scale compared to other infringements.)

So, if you really think that the very few people who are making $5/month are a bigger issue than the film industry legally using "free" CGI to suppress artist wages, then I really feel like your priorities are misaligned.

but it's a low effort attempt to call artists hypocrites and disregard their concerns.

I definitely don't mean that artists are hypocrites. Artists just want to do their thing and get credit and maybe even money. They're the victims - regardless of whether I'm right or type right, in either case, artists are the victims. Tho tbh I'm lowkey offended at your implication that only an artist should be concerned about artists losing revenue via CGI. And, also, I'm not saying "danbooru did it first" and wagging my finger at you for not breaking their door down.

I'm saying that the reason the art was used to train these models is because it was on danbooru. Or Reddit, or imgur, or whatever.

(I think danbooru is actually as much a software company as a image site? So I'm not even sure if they're the right name to use. I always use their name because Stable Diffusion uses their tag system, but idk if that's fair.)

Blaming Stable Diffusion for danbooru's infringement is sideways. Like, imagine I plugged the power in my house to piggyback off of yours. Then my friend comes over and plugs his gaming rig in and draws a shit ton of power. Are you going to be mad at him, or me?

Regarding journalism - what I meant by that is that artists are facing the same threat journalists faced, and if we don't start fighting the fight that will save them, they won't be saved. And the "you trained your model on my shit without asking" argument is not going to save them.

This is a bad faith reading. The argument isn't that "someone else did it first" - the argument is that the concern over copyright is suspiciously sudden. No one has gotten mad about danbooru - or Reddit, or Facebook, or any of the other billions of sites that use content created by others to draw users and make a profit from ad revenue. Why are people mad about some neckbeard's $3/month patreon based on an unoriginal art style, but not about Facebook (etc) destroying the entire thing that used to be called journalism? Danbooru literally stole the work, why is no one mad about that? Why are they only mad when someone figuratively steals the work?

AI art has a similar potential to do to set what Facebook did to journalism - I just wrote a long post about it in another reply in this thread so I won't repeat it all here - but, wealthy corporations will be able to use AI art to destroy the career of being an artist. That's what's dangerous about AI.

you really can't see how an imageboard has completely different considerations over image generating models?

Of course I see the difference - direct, outright theft and direct profiting from the theft is much worse then using content that's been stolen to train computer image generation software.

If your complaint is about the copyright infringement, then danbooru should be the target of your complaint - but no one seems to care about that. Why don't people care about that?

If the concern is that this software makes it easier to commit crimes, sure, I guess? But, again, danbooru. And like every other site on the internet.

The concern, it seems to me, is with person A being an artist, person B makes art and tries to pass it off as an original work by person A. And that's valid - but I still don't feel like it's worse than actually just taking the artwork and calling it "content" and using it to generate as revenue.

The main problem i have with this criticism is that (imo) there are much more important issues at stake with midjourney or whatever - and this (alleged) concern (alleged because it only seems to go skin-deep) prevents people from caring about the real issues.

Many many many jobs now, when a person leaves, they're replaced with 2 part time people. This benefits profits and hurts everyone else.

The issue with computer generated images is that, when a movie studio needs a sci fi background, it used to require an artist; now, it just requires midjourney - and you can hire the artist for 4 hours (instead of 4 days) to touch it up, fix the fingers, etc - which not only takes less time, but also less talent, which increases the labor supply, which pushes wages down.

This technology has the potential to take the career of being an artist and turns out into a low-wage, part time thing that you can't live off of. This has happened in so many parts of our economy and it's really bad, and we need to protect artists from that fate.

So no, I really can't muster up giving a shit about whether someone on pixiv copies your art and makes 3$ a month from a patreon. The entire field of visual arts is under threat of complete annihilation from greedy capitalists. They're the villains here, not some neckbeard's patreon.