All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
Why is the cc-by-nc-sa license disappointing? Is your disappointment exclusive to version 4.0?
My only disappontment is with those humans (and humans who use ““humans””) who side with AI model using corporations that steal other people’s content to train said models for profit, over regular everyday people.
Nice off-topic comment. Pretty sure by now everybody is aware of that (and other posts) on the topic of using a license.
Is it an external leak? Or an internal one?
My guess would be internal to the engine/compartment somewhere, with limited or no access to the broken part, or else they would have repaired it instead of just monitoring it.
My guess is that NASA has done the math and it says this is an extremely unlikely scenario to have happen, but they could do it if they absolutely needed to.
I guess I’m used to the old NASA, where they would never ‘play the Vegas odds’, risk the astronauts under any condition, besides the normal risks of just launching in a rocket in the first place.
Interesting to see how having a private business corporation involved would change that mindset.
I do hope you’re right, for the crews sake.
Its not great, but not nearly as bad as Challenger SRB O-rings.
I was speaking more from the managerial and not the engineering point of view, when I made that comment about the vibes. How management politics underplayed problems until a disaster happened
My point still stands though. If the leak grows large during the trip, and all the helium escapes, then they can’t maneuver the craft, which means they can’t get at the right angle to reenter the atmosphere without burning up.
And if the shuttle tiles situation tells us anything, they don’t take everything with them up into space, to do on-site emergency repairs.
Even if they brought extra helium with them, if the leak is widened (launch vibrations, etc.) to a point where the helium escapes too quickly now, before the whole reentry sequence completes, then they’re stuck.
Just feels like driving a car across the Mojave Desert, with a known tire leak, and hoping the leak doesn’t get any worse. Feels like a ‘roll of the dice’ moment.
From the article …
Stich explained that the plan is to monitor the leak in the lead-up to launch and, after reaching the International Space Station, reassess the leak rate.
I got major ‘O-ring’ vibes after reading that.
I can’t believe they’re going to fly with that leak.
Can you at least make the text smaller? That way people aren’t as bothered by it, but you still have your licence?
I already did actually, a couple of weeks ago.
I’m using the Lemmy web editor. The web client doesn’t let you change font sizes, but it does let you mark font as subscript or superscript, which is a smaller font size, so I did that.
My understanding is some mobile clients have problem with the subscript/superscript formatting, and the cause of that is on their end, not supporting the format text yet.
If you don’t see my license declaration in a smaller font, direct the devs of your client to look at this page, which is the formatting instructions from Lemmy, and specifically the subscript and superscript formatting.
If your comments are going to gum up the thread with a segment that they don’t think will have any effect, what’s a few more to match?
Well their comments are their responsibility, not mine (you shouldn’t ‘blame the victim’), so I can’t talk towards their actions, except to say that each of us are supposed to behave civilly here on Lemmy, and not bully others to conform.
“Your license doesn’t do what you say it does.”
“Haha, joke’s on you, I don’t want it to do what I say it does.”
Glad we figured that one out.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
Hahahahaha god damn what a load of bullshit. Did you also paste that image on Facebook?
Best not to derail this topic. It’s been discussed to death already.
You are writing “anti-commercial AI,” they are making their work explicitly available to republish non-commercially.
That’s just a description of what the license actually does, non-commercial usage of my content.
It’s actually not even my description, it’s one I got from someone else, who’s also licensing their content with the same license.
I have no problem with my content being used for non-commercial purposes.
You have completely different motivations.
No, I do not. My intent aligns with ProPublica.
I don’t think the license does anything at all
ProPublica would disagree with you.
you are not also including some unique phrase or UUID
The specific license number is explicitly stated.
How are you going to prove their models used specifically your copyrighted content in the event that courts rule it is not fair use to do so?
Already discussed in that other conversation post.
This comment is explaining it very well: https://lemmy.ml/comment/10762134
I’ve explained myself quite well in that conversation.
And again, no need to repeat, it’s all there already. Unless you guys just enjoy repeating yourself again and again with zero effect.
Remember I’m pullin’ for ya–we’re all in this together. ✊🏼
Thanks, and no disrespect meant, but I would believe that more if you did license your own comments as well.
In case you need the formatting for it, here it is…
[~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)
Feel free to replace the link to point to whatever license you wish to use for your own content, if you do not want to use the same one that I am using.
My guess is that people disagree with propagating the delusion that pasting that link in every comment helps with stopping AI from feeding on your input.
ProPublica disagrees with you.
But best not to derail this topic. It’s been discussed to death already.
Well that link just leads to somebody mocking you then leads to another thread about how the license thing is totally bullshit lol
You’re being intellectually dishonest.
It points to a comment that has a link to a ProPublica article posted on Lemmy that also uses a Creative Commons license in the description for the post.
And if you instead go to the top comment of my linked comment (‘View all comments’ link), then you’ll see the whole long conversation that I refer to, where every point has already been discussed.
You do know your license is meaningless?
Best not to derail this topic. It’s been discussed to death already.
It must be the AI accounts that take offence with the licence.
That would be my guess.
There’s a lot of history in the last three-ish weeks in multiple of my posts with me using the license, including a standalone topic, where people/““people”” are ripping into me every way they can for using it, so I’m assuming it’s just more of that.
The same cycle tends to reoccur approximately every day to every other day. Usually someone asking an innocent question about it, and then somebody else replies to them, ripping into me, and then it explodes from there, derailing the OP.
I hate that the Lemmy admins are not taking care of the problem (if you admins are, and I’m just not just seeing it, then you have my apologies, and my thanks), but I’m also kind of numb to it at this point.
Getting to the topic of the OP…
Gamers Nexus is very consumer advocacy oriented, so I hate to think people are downvoting them for being them.
In fact, if you’re looking to build a PC, and want good advice on your rights when it comes with warranty repair for products you may have purchased, I would definitely suggest watching the video that’s linked In this topic (start @26:00 if you are in a hurry).
You’re welcome. I appreciate you helping out with normalizing signature lines.
Anti Commercial-AI license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)