Yes, I found this comment very hard to understand until I realised they were talking about it being opt-out with no setting to change it. (At first I thought it was opt-in by default, and the "by default" implies that there is a setting to change the opt-in/opt-out setting)
You are "opting in to sharing your prompts for training", by default in this case. My slider says: "Allow the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral's AI models.", it is on by default for everyone on the Team plan, the admin can't centrally turn it off anymore, and any user can toggle it when they want to. This all changed last week.
I know I'm naive but I expect that when I pay, this stuff is simply off, so I was already surprised by the Pro plan. But I did look out for it there, because Anthropic made this switch some time ago.
> You are "opting in to sharing your prompts for training", by default in this case.
The English term for that is "opt out" not "opt in." To opt is to choose. If something is on by default, you have not opted in. You were forced in, and turning it off means you must opt out. (I.e., choose to be out.)
normally I wouldn't care about a mistake like this, except that opt in/out are very important concepts in software development and hacker culture. And it reversed the meaning of the original comment in a highly confusing, relevant way.
as another non-native speaker, i think that while the person you're answering to didn't use the default way of expressing this in the english-speaking world, i did understand what they meant, i think they do know what opting means and i think the reasoning is this:
when they say data collection is "opt in" by default they mean that by choosing to use a product, you are opting into your data being collected (at the same time).
on the other hand, native speakers saying something is "opt out" describes the options or toggles one has available in the default case - when something is toggled "true", you (only) have the choice to toggle it of.
so english speakers talk about the controls one has to CHANGE the status quo.
They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. The phrases "opt in" and "opt out" will always be contextual based on what is being opted, so it really falls to the reader to pay attention to that context. Please don't give English language advice as though you are an authority; there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable.
Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever.
Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.
I read it as though he was trying to say '[you are] opt[ed] in by default'.
Now granted, he did not say that, and I only reached that conclusion by the rest of this conversation, but I think to have meant that and said '... was now also opt-in by default...' isn't unreasonable.
Just sharing since you mentioned you couldn't see how using that term for the opposite would make sense.
Thank you. However, assuming you mean ‘an affirmative choice is made for you’ when you say ’you are opted in’, that use really takes the ‘opt’ out of the ’opt-in’. You can opt in, but you can’t have someone else ‘opt you in’ for you; that seems to go against the very core meaning of ‘opt-in’ (i.e. having to explicitly choose something yourself).
In other words, you can explicitly choose something by yourself, but if other people (in this case companies, service providers) choose something for you, it’s no longer your explicit decision made by yourself. Hence why I believe we can’t consider that ‘opting in’.
Even read this way, it doesn't make logical sense. It's a great example of newspeak - corporations know people use "opt-in" as a purchasing signal, so they're trying to redefine the word by abusing it enough times.
"Opting someone else in" is essentially the same category of error as "consenting for someone else". People can only consent for others in specific circumstances and even then only for specific people (e.g. legal guardians), trying to argue "but I consented for them!" in front of a judge usually ain't gonna work.
> The property of having to choose *explicitly* to join or permit something; a decision having the *default option being exclusion or avoidance*; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.
You're just using the term wrong. That's okay, I've used words wrong before, and it just means you've been presented an opportunity for learning a new fact.
But there's no argument to be had except with the dictionary.
> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine
"Opt in" and "by default" are contradictory phrases. They mean literally the opposite of each other. The only reason it's coherent is that most native speakers will elect to believe "by default" was used correctly because it's the easier to use term.
> there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable
I think you're using emotionally inflammatory language, possibly unintentionally. no one is refusing to accept what they wrote.
That being said, the way they used "opt in" is categorically wrong. It's the opposite of the dictionary definition.
> The property of having to choose explicitly to join or permit something; a decision having the default option being exclusion or avoidance; used particularly with regard to mailing lists and advertising.
Keeping a simple log of "accepted/rejected" avenues is basically all that's needed, maybe with a root style guide in the project. I've got several multi-day sessions in 5.6 Sol running without going off the rails in terms of complexity. After a while in this loop it actually starts to remind/berate itself to keep things straight-forward.
I’m happy for the author, but I feel like that blog post kind of supports parent commenter’s argument. It sounds like Slug would’ve been created even if patents were not a thing. They had their own use case for it, and that usecase alone was enough for the R&D investment. So patents did not encourage innovation in this case.
In e.g. medicine, not having patents could arguably mean that companies don’t do as much R&D.
Seems the author made it public domain not because that'd be the best for the software industry at large, but because "holding on to it any longer benefits nobody", which means the amount they earn from it monetarily is today minuscule compared to what it was.
Parents point seems to be about that if this author of Slug wouldn't have patent it in the first place, then in general that work would have had an larger impact in the software industry, compared to this situation where the author did patent it.
Case(s) in point: all the comments on HN who independently came up with the same algorithm but couldn't publish it as FOSS because they found a patent covering it.
How is that ambiguous? The best interpretation I can find where "test" is a verb is an elision: Test [that] B is an alternative to test A. That is an unlikely reading: "test" is a verb in the first instance and a noun in the second, breaking parallelism. And it's just a very unlikely thing to direct someone to do.
Ah, I see, taking "to test A" as an infinitive. But it would be strange to say test B is an alternative without saying what it's an alternative to. The other reading still seems quite unlikely.
The point of STE is to support technical writers who have knowledge of the matter and a style guide. In other words, STE will not make something unambiguous simply by replacing words. The example sentence is just to illustrate a grammar rule: "test" as a verb vs a noun. That is all. You should not assume an STE rule will disambiguate a single sentence pulled out of context.
To answer the question at the top, yes there are countless suites that are instantly resumable even after months away. I used to teach Blender (v3) and I think I could find my way around but the overhead isn’t worth it. I’m also though in a privileged position to be able to afford more, smaller commercial tools.
CAD: MoI (cool kids nowadays use Plasticity, but that is taking on similar feature creep - in any case I own and use both)
SubD modelling: nothing has ever beat Silo. And silo still gets updates, but the workflow is the same. Cheetah3D is also in the same boat.
Rendering (I do products, not character/CGI): Maverick. Fastest path tracer in the world, perpetual license, rivals Vray for product viz. if you’re currently using Keyshot - switch now.
Texturing: 3Dcoat or Marmoset Toolbag 5
What most of these have in common is either the workflow is super intuitive, or you have at least 15 years of training material readily accessible that still applies to the software today as it did back then.
Overall it’s a choice between a kitchen sink pipeline (Blender, Rhino) vs a specialised one. If I were to teach again, I would still use Blender in the classroom, and I fully support the project. My brain just works better with smaller, focussed tools.
The question is why don’t they integrate cycles? I mean I have a random app for home planning on macOS and even that comes with Cycles as the rendering engine. Can’t be that hard.
Key difference between the trademark systems here: in the EU system you don’t get a trademark by trading with a specific name and it then being recognized. It’s the other way around: the name must be unique, not confusing, and highly specific. It’s actually irrelevant whether a product exists or is traded at all.
Having gone through the process and gotten both approvals and rejections, the line is pretty clear.
reply