

Claiming that GTA is responsible for mass shootings is an example of what pro-gun activists do in order to deflect the blame off of guns.
In fact, Redot has had 13 releases since the project started late last year.
With an absolutely massive number of commits since then.
An absolutely massive number of commits that were originally made to Godot, sure. Redot has 118 more commits than Godot as of the time of this writing (76,344 vs 76,266). That’s not even 1 original commit per day.
I genuinely don’t understand why people here are taking it so hard that I wish the Immich devs were using semver.
Because you didn’t say that; you said “Breaking changes in a point release? Not cool” and later “I’m basing this off the guidelines at semver.org.”
I’m paraphrasing your comments from memory, to be clear, so apologies if I misquoted you.
It certainly felt to me like you were assuming that this project was using semver and was not following it well, not that you wouldn’t want to use a project that receives this many breaking changes / that doesn’t follow semver. Those complaints both make a lot more sense to me - and I’ve seen many people say similar things about Immich in the past. In fact, it’s a big part of why I haven’t migrated from Photoprism to Immich myself - in this regard they’re complete opposites.
I don’t think there’s any room to argue that announcing a 1.x with a change the developers say is a breaking change, which is what Immich have done, fits within the semver.org guidelines.
That wasn’t the argument.
Following semver is optional. If a project doesn’t explicitly state it is following semver, it shouldn’t be assumed that it is. With regard to Immich in particular, a cursory review of their documentation makes it clear that they are not following semver. Literally, go to https://immich.app/ and read the text at the very top of the page:
⚠️ The project is under very active development. Expect bugs and changes.
Go to the repo and you’ll see the README, which states at the very top:
- ⚠️ The project is under very activedevelopment.
- ⚠️ Expect bugs and breaking changes.
If you can read that, see that they’re on major version 1 with a minor version over 100, and you still think they’re using semver, then that’s on you.
The devs have stated they won’t be using semver until they consider Immich production ready, and that moving to a 1.x version from 0.x was a mistake made some time ago. If you want to think about it as though it is semver, consider the major version to still be 0. See https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/5086#discussioncomment-7593227 for example.
As this project is clearly not following semver, the semver guidelines aren’t applicable and haven’t been violated.
I don’t think there’s any room to argue
Even if semver were applicable, in this case, I would still disagree. The text from semver.org states:
8. Major version X (X.y.z | X > 0) MUST be incremented if any backward incompatible changes are introduced to the public API.
It doesn’t state that any backward incompatible changes, period, require a major version increase, only changes to the public API. I would personally argue that the deployment configuration is part of the public API, but not all project owners agree with me. Even if they do agree, they might say that this was not a documented deployment configuration and thus not part of the public API, and that it therefore doesn’t necessitate an increase to the major version, but as they knew that people were using that configuration, anyway, they included a note about a potentially breaking change as a courtesy to those users.
Immich isn’t a library (the main use case for semver is dependencies that will be pulled into other projects) and as far as I know they don’t state that they use semver.
I don’t use my Windows 10 desktop a ton, but I’ve definitely gotten the full page “Update to Windows 11” screen a few times, and it has Windows 10 Pro installed.
Sure, just be aware that unripe tomatoes (not just the stems) are also toxic to cats.
You can’t just consider the cheese! You gotta look up all the ingredients!
Consensus: hold the tomato! Otherwise, if there’s no seasoning, everything else is acceptable in small amounts.
This is what I would try first. It looks like 1337 is the exposed port, per https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor/blob/master/Dockerfile
x-logging:
&default-logging
options:
max-size: '10m'
max-file: '5'
driver: json-file
services:
mongo:
image: mongo:4.4
volumes:
- ${NS_MONGO_DATA_DIR:-./mongo-data}:/data/db:cached
logging: *default-logging
nightscout:
image: nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor:latest
container_name: nightscout
restart: always
depends_on:
- mongo
logging: *default-logging
ports:
- 1337:1337
environment:
### Variables for the container
NODE_ENV: production
TZ: [removed]
### Overridden variables for Docker Compose setup
# The `nightscout` service can use HTTP, because we use `nginx` to serve the HTTPS
# and manage TLS certificates
INSECURE_USE_HTTP: 'true'
# For all other settings, please refer to the Environment section of the README
### Required variables
# MONGO_CONNECTION - The connection string for your Mongo database.
# Something like mongodb://sally:sallypass@ds099999.mongolab.com:99999/nightscout
# The default connects to the `mongo` included in this docker-compose file.
# If you change it, you probably also want to comment out the entire `mongo` service block
# and `depends_on` block above.
MONGO_CONNECTION: mongodb://mongo:27017/nightscout
# API_SECRET - A secret passphrase that must be at least 12 characters long.
API_SECRET: [removed]
### Features
# ENABLE - Used to enable optional features, expects a space delimited list, such as: careportal rawbg iob
# See https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor#plugins for details
ENABLE: careportal rawbg iob
# AUTH_DEFAULT_ROLES (readable) - possible values readable, denied, or any valid role name.
# When readable, anyone can view Nightscout without a token. Setting it to denied will require
# a token from every visit, using status-only will enable api-secret based login.
AUTH_DEFAULT_ROLES: denied
# For all other settings, please refer to the Environment section of the README
# https://github.com/nightscout/cgm-remote-monitor#environment
To run it with Nginx instead of Traefik, you need to figure out what port Nightscout’s web server runs on, then expose that port, e.g.,
services:
nightscout:
ports:
- 3000:3000
You can remove the labels as those are used by Traefik, as well as the Traefik service itself.
Then just point Nginx to that port (e.g., 3000) on your local machine.
—-
Traefik has to know the port, too, but it will auto detect the port that a local Docker service is running on. It looks like your config is relying on that feature as I don’t see the label that explicitly specifies the port.
Thank you! That gives me a starting point that should be easy to look up!
Why is 255 off limits? What is 127.0.0.0 used for?
To clarify, I meant that specific address - if the range starts at 127.0.0.1 for local, then surely 127.0.0.0 does something (or is reserved to sometimes do something, even if it never actually does in practice), too.
Advanced setup would include a reverse proxy to forward the requests from the applications port to the internet
I use Traefik as my reverse proxy, but I have everything on subdomains for simplicity’s sake (no path mapping except when necessary, which it generally isn’t). I know 127.0.0.53 has special meaning when it comes to how the machine directs particular requests, but I never thought to look into whether Traefik or any other reverse proxy supported routing rules based on the IP address. But unless there’s some way to specify that IP and the IP of the machine, it would be limited to same device communications. Makes me wonder if that’s used for any container system (vs the use of the 10, 172.16-31, and 192.168 blocks that I’ve seen used by Docker).
Well this is another advanced setup but if you wanted to segregate two application on different subnets you can. I’m not sure if there is a security benefit by adding the extra hop
Is there an extra hop when you’re still on the same machine? Like an extra resolution step?
I still don’t understand why .255 specifically is prohibited. 8 bits can go up to 255, so it seems weird to prohibit one specific value. I’ve seen router subnet configurations that explicitly cap the top of the range at .254, though - I feel like I’ve also seen some that capped at .255 but I don’t have that hardware available to check. So my assumption is that it’s implementation specific, but I can’t think of an implementation that would need to reserve all the .255 values. If it was just the last one, that would make sense - e.g., as a convention for where the DHCP server lives on each network.
Why is 255 off limits? What is 127.0.0.0 used for?
I thought Hue bulbs used Zigbee?
The up arrow moves through the letters, e.g., A->B->C. The down arrow moves to the next character in the sequence, e.g., C->CA->CAA. If you click past the correct letter, you’ll have to click all the way through again. And if you submit the wrong letter, you have to start all over (after it takes twenty seconds attempting to connect with the wrong password and then alerts you that it didn’t work, of course).
Fair point, I should have asked about commercial games in general
That said I didn’t mean that the game studio itself would do the AI training and own their models in-house; if they did, I’d expect it to go just as poorly as you would. Rather, I’d expect the model to be created by an organization specialized in that sort of thing.
For example, “Marey” is one example I found of a GenAI model that its creators are saying was trained ethically.
Another is Adobe Firefly, where Adobe says they trained only on licensed and public domain content. It also sounds like Adobe is paying the artists whose content was used for AI training. I believe that Canva is doing something similar.
StabilityAI is also doing something similar with Stable Audio 2.0, where they partnered with a music licensing company, AudioSparx, to ensure that artists are compensated, AI opt outs are respected, etc…
I haven’t dug into any of those too deep, but they seem to be heading in the right direction at the surface level, at least.
One of the GenAI scenarios that’s the most terrifying to me is the idea of a company like Disney using all the material they have copyright for to train their own, proprietary GenAI image, audio, and video tools… not because I think the outputs would be bad, but because of the impact that would have on creators in that industry.
Fortunately, as long as copyright doesn’t apply to purely AI generated outputs, even if trained entirely on your own content, then I don’t think Disney specifically will do this.
I mention that as an example because that usage of AI, regardless of how ethically the model was trained, would still be unethical, in my opinion. Likewise in game creation, an ethically trained and operated model could still be used unethically to eliminate many people’s jobs in the interest solely of better profits.
I’d be on board with AI use (in game creation or otherwise) if a company were to say, “We’re not changing the budget we have for our human workforce, including for contractors, licensed art, and so on, other than increasing it as inflation and wages increase. We will be using ethical AI models to create more content than we otherwise would have been able to.” But I feel like in a corporate setting, its use is almost always going to result in them cutting jobs.
Are you okay with AAA studios using GenAI that was trained only on licensed works?
Copyright applies to unfinished works, too. There are many reasons it might not protect an unfinished work, but those reasons are still relevant even for finished works.
If someone steals your physical drawing, that’s theft. If they take a picture of it, then use the picture - or your picture + modifications - without your permission, particularly in a commercial work, then that’s copyright infringement, but not theft. If they steal your physical drawing and then take a picture and so on, then it’s both theft and copyright infringement.
Most likely this wasn’t considered copyright infringement because the allegedly copied art isn’t copyrightable, e.g., game mechanics; or the plaintiff didn’t own the copyrights themselves and thus couldn’t sue (possibly the arts were still copyrighted by the original artists, having never been purchased; possibly they were stock assets that were re-purchased by the defendant). There are any number of reasons. However, “the work wasn’t published” isn’t one of them.
On the other hand, it’s quite likely they were able to sue for theft of trade secrets for that very reason. And they might have chosen to do that simply because proving copyright infringement is much more difficult.
This happened because the developers allegedly used assets from a game called P3, which was never released, and therefore not subject to copyright infringement claims.
That isn’t how copyright works. Copyright is awarded upon creation of a work, not upon release.