There is also no way to verify that the software that is being installed is not going to do anything bad. If you trust the software then why not trust the installation scripts by the same authors? What would a third party location bring to improve security?
And generally what you are describing is a software repo, you know the one that comes with your distro.
Protip: Don't write 600 lines of code without ever testing it at all. And by testing I mean anything, manual testing included or even just compiling it or running a linter over it. Do things incrementally and verify things at each step to make sure you are not drifting off course by some faulty assumption you made near the start.
Documentation is generally considered one of the stronger points of rust libraries. Crates.io is not a documentation site you want https://docs.rs/ for that though it is generally linked to on crates.io. A lot of bigger crates also have their own online books for more in depth stuff. It is not that common to find a larger crate with bad documentation.
Sounds like you just need to keep the data on your server and use samba or NFS and a network mount on the other devices.
You might want to checkout rust-script which essentially does the same but also lets you use it as a hashbang line to make executable rust scripts. And works with cargo/can install deps.
There is also an RFC for this feature.
Just because I have heard of NordVPN doesn’t mean I’ll necessarily use it (in fact I use arch mullvad, btw.)
No it does not mean you will pick it. It means you are more likely to pick it. Given all else being equal you are vastly more likely to pick something familiar than something unfamiliar. And it all comes down to trends and statistics. The hope is that more people will go for your brand that leads to more sales then the cost of the marketing in the first place. You might not go for NordVPN for other reasons, but can you say that about every product you have been advertised to? If anything the more you know about a product the less advertising will affect you in the familiarity sense - these adverts are not so much meant for you as they are for people not familiar with VPNs at all.
But there are a lot of studies on the topic like this and this meta analysis that seem to conclude that advertising is effective. And there are a lot of studies on what various aspects of adverts make them more effective. I am yet to see any research that says adverts are ineffective overall, though I have not dug that deeply into it.
Concurrency is not easy if you need the output and exit status of the commands. Fire and forget concurrency/parallelism is easy in any language. It is when you need to sync state up that it becomes hard.
However, Rocket's ambitions take their toll. While still being actively developed, the releases are not as frequent as they used to be.
That is a massive understatement. Rocket is on RC3 of v0.5, the RC1 was released in 2021. So that is basically one small RC release a year... And v0.4 requires nightly and is not async so is hardly a viable version these days. This project is far closer to not being actively developed then this article makes it seem. IMO unless something seriously changes with the project Rocket is not a web framework worth considering these days.
It was a head of its time when it first came out, but is way behind the curve in its current form.
From the case itself:
Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work, the scope of the protection obtained over the resultant image, how to assess the originality of AI-generated works where the systems may have been trained on unknown pre-existing works, how copyright might best be used to incentivize creative works involving AI, and more.
So the question of how much human input is needed is still up for debate. I doubt any prompt will pass the creativity mark, but I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.
This case did not explore either of these ideas, only that you cannot claim the AI as the author and thus claim copyright via the work for hire clause in the copyright laws if there is no human input into the process.
This ruling IMO makes sense and is inline with other cases (such as photos being taken by an animal with no human input are not copyrightable). And IMO this is a good ruling - makes it harder for large numbers of images to be copyrighted on mass by companies or companies that own the AI claiming copyright over works their AI generated (even if the prompt was given by others).
This title is massively misleading. There is no ruling that says AI-Generated Art cannot be copyrighted at all. This case is about someone who filed for copyright listing the AI as the author and that the copyright should be transferred to him as the owner of the AI.
Plaintiff Stephen Thaler owns a computer system he calls the “Creativity Machine,” which he claims generated a piece of visual art of its own accord. He sought to register the work for a copyright, listing the computer system as the author and explaining that the copyright should transfer to him as the owner of the machine.
The claim was rejected on account of you can only claim copyright if you are human and an AI does not count as a human - so no AI can claim copyright over a works.
The Copyright Office denied the application on the grounds that the work lacked human authorship,
And he explicitly stated he gave no real input into the work.
Plaintiff requested reconsideration of his application, confirming that the work “was autonomously generated by an AI” and “lack[ed] traditional human authorship,”
But that does not mean AI generated work is uncopyrightable like the title claims - only that enough human input needs to be present to be able to claim copyright over any works. We have yet to decide on how much input is required for someone to claim copyright over an AI generated image, which the case clearly states:
Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions regarding how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an “author” of a generated work
So AI generated work is not uncopyrightable by the own conclusion of this case. Making the title of this article a complete lie. More cases will likely be done to draw the line as to what really counts as enough human input - this case was not one that does that. Only confirms that non-humans cannot claim copyright over an image. And that you need enough human input for a work to be copyrightable.
5 years is optimistic. More likely 10-20 years at least. Established languages have a lot of inertia and it takes a very long time for that to change.