Notices by bri (brhfl@digipres.club)

@dalias @sus dude who writes it proudly works for palantir, really not sure why folks keep trusting him

folks, i think we all mashed ‘no’ too hard

what a cute couple ☺️

i generally only buy the cheapest of gear new, i’m pretty patient about waiting for things to turn up on the secondary market. but damn, the endorphin.es evil pet is exactly* what i’ve been waiting for for a couple of projects. though i dunno yet if anyone’s selling it in the states other than perfect circuit

*i already know things i would change about it, but it’s exactly what i’ve been waiting for in the sense of a granular that can be finagled into a live looper

also i gotta give them credit for the un-fuck-uppable power input on this thing 😹

an internet pal is involved with this film on kickstarter about grieving a loved one as they turn into a crab. it has a crab puppet. it has less than a day left. check it out if you like crab puppets? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inwaves/in-waves-a-surreal-crab-comedy

@HopelessDemigod and apparently their plan to remedy this is to cut off folks’ pensions 🙄

@danlyke it’s not a ddg thing, it’s a bing api thing… while actually going to bing to do the same search will return some other odd result, other search engines that use bing as their index give the same useless summary…

@zalasur @cwebber well, we know the origin story of that one (according to al jourgenson at least) and it is homophobia, albeit from the owner of wax trax. though i don’t think co-opting someone else’s homophobia really excuses it.

being a queer kid who was into electronic music in the ‘90s really had its ups and downs lol

@inthehands do you specifically need to describe it as a diagram? that is to say, is there a way to get the actual information you need to convey across without even considering the visual elements? ultimately the goal isn’t ‘describe an image perfectly,’ it’s ‘get all the relevant information to the access tech user that the sighted user would get’.

hey so the soundcloud ai thing is obviously bad and you should probably not host things there that you believe have artistic integrity, but it's also important to point out that it's like, over a year old at this point. https://web.archive.org/web/20240213044454/https://soundcloud.com/terms-of-use

@HauntedOwlbear february ~2024~, to be clear https://digipres.club/@brhfl/114479070867107089

would hate to be the person tasked with writing marketing copy for a knob

@screwtape gotcha! i'm not a lawyer so... y'know, grain of salt, but i can tell you my understanding. cc licenses are irrevocable. but, as the rights-holder, you are free to 'rerelease' such a work under a more- or less-permissive license. you can freely attempt to scrub all instances of the earlier version if you so desire. but the irrevocability means that if someone has a copy of the version that was marked cc 2.0 out there, _that is still binding_.

@screwtape essentially, as long as there's a single copy of each out in the wild, you have two otherwise identical products, each with separate licenses. cc sorta kinda outlines what goes into upgrading at https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/4.0_upgrade_guidelines#Logistics_of_applying_4.0, but there isn't much to it because again you're just sort of... doing a new one.

@screwtape i _think_ it would be similar with gpl licenses (apologies i know much less about agpl) but there are (or have been in the past) compatibility concerns that i'm ill-equipped to speak on, though looking for guides like https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_analysis:_GPL might be a starting point.

@screwtape hmm more details of your concerns? away from cc vs. up to 4.0?

@krupo @rebeccawatson somehow i don’t have a lot of faith in their ‘focus on safety’ in an unregulated market either 🙄

(oh, right, ‘not what i call bonk wave volume 003 disc c’)

i would post my bonkify wrapped, but it’s just ‘not what i call bonk wave volume 003 disc a,’ ‘not what i call bonk wave volume 003 disc b,’ and i’m drawing a blank as to what the other one was.