You see, all the fake fields of studies are field with leftists. And sure, you might say democrats aren't leftists, which is what every dumbass marxist says.
It's a dog whistle. There are no studies on this, why would academia (which for the field that would study this is 100% composed of leftists) have a study on leftist dog whistles?
Also, putting any value on "studies" when they almost universally fail to replicate outside of hard sciences is dumb.
Economic transactions only happen if there is a mutual benefit. Typically one side of the transaction has more market power than the other and captures more of the surplus but the transaction doesn't happen if one side is worse off from it.
The entire idea of economic transactions being exploitative is literal Marxist propaganda. If you read the word "exploit" in some news article and it's referring to economic transactions, you are reading propaganda.
It's definitely copyright infringement. Also it's hilarious that the owner of this repo is advocating for DRM. When someone uses the word "exploit" to describe commercial transactions you just know they have room temperature IQ.
You can test it by comparing human translations with LLM translations. The results are pretty close. Like I said in another comment, the common failure mode with mandarin is around names and genders
My point with regards to 2 is that it would have to maintain consistency across translation runs. Entire novels don't fit in the context so it can't make up a logically consistent novel across prompts.
When I do the translations, I actually don't even include previous chapters in the context.
We have some people that read Mandarin and double check the output once in a while. If it didn't work well the story would quickly become incoherent and make no logical sense because chapters are translated on their own.
The common failure mode is names and genders, for some reason it likes to swap names and genders of characters.
The novels I like the most right now are "Mysteries of the Immortal Puppet Master" and "Eternal tale" which are both just fun Chinese fantasy novels.
> What brought about the interest?
They are very unique coming from the perspective of an American that has mostly read books published by Western authors. There are all these unique fantasy tropes based on Chinese history that are like a parallel branch to Tolkein based fantasy. Also, you can clearly see that they have completely different value systems and ironically you can tell they are comparatively less censored.
What is your definition of typesafe here? With SeaOrm structs are created directly from the db schema with codegen. This is vastly superior to using strings and checking them at build time.
Just up front, it seems like you think I don't know about how all of these things are implemented.
I do.
So when you say SeaORM has Sqlx as a dependency. I know that. If the purpose of that statement was to say seaorm compile times can't be faster that sqlx because sqlx is a dependency of seaorm, that thought is wrong.
Using SeaORM the way it is intended to be used results in code that is much faster to compile than sqlx being used the way it's intended to be used.
Like I said in another comment, I'm pointing out what is going to actually happen based on incentives, not what I want to happen. I'd much rather the open web continue to exist and I think AI will be a beneficial thing for humanity.
edit: to be clear, it's already happening. Blogs are moving to substack, twitter blocks crawling, reddit is going the same way in blocking all crawlers except google.
It's pretty easy to see how cloudflare arrived in a situation where they are in a position to create this sort of marketplace without resorting to conspiracies about them trying to take over the internet.
They solved the very real problem of DDOS which consequently put them in a position to be a middleman between internet traffic between consumers and producers. Now they are expanding their business to take advantage of this privileged position they have.
> This time, Cloudflare has formed a "marketplace" for the abuse from which they're protecting you, partnering with the abusers.
When the original comment has a statement like this, it's a clear sign there is no potential for constructive discussion. Their understanding of markets has to be completely warped if they think a market existing constitutes partnering with one side of the exchange.