The problem is when other people are getting 'AI suggestions' based on your work. What if you don't own the copyright for the work you're producing (it's for a client)? What if you don't what AI being trained on your data?
> Two important highlights: First, all admins have control of whether their team’s content data is used for training. Second, participation in AI content training is not required to use Figma or Figma’s AI features. Learn more about our approach to training.
Blanket bans on third party AI tools don't make any sense to me. As the parent commenter said, they already have all your data, so you already have to trust them with that. Why would you trust them in those other areas but not trust their explicit statements that say that you can disable training on your data?
I agree with this, I think I was just interpreting "ban" differently. I.e. if the default is you can't use it, but then there is a specific request/review/audit process to allow it (as original GP's comment said), that makes sense. I just don't think it makes sense to ban without an exception process.
The language in the announcement looks tricky (albeit I didn't get into the legal document). It says NEW content won't be used for training. Also, it's going to be on for a moment. You have to go out of your way to turn it off. They could claim they copied your info in the hour or so before you got around to it.
Another commenter mentioned that the default is no training for Enterprise and Organization accounts, but for Starter and Professional accounts the default allows training and you need to explicitly opt out.
If Figma takes a little inspiration from Adobe (they were almost acquired at one point after all) they'll realize they can change their TOS at any time for any reason with impunity. Such statements are at best dubious and at worst complete unprovable bullshit.
The only way to be sure your data stays yours is local models running on your machines.
This applies to all non self hosted software and even much self hosted software that radios out invasive telemetry. The difference between offering an AI feature or not offering it is time, but collecting your data as training for that eventually inevitable AI feature is happening now, everywhere, all the time. The only defense is retreat into a SKIF or depend on ToS, and as you point out ToS is a very weak defense. Things are moving considerably faster than law, regulation, judicial review, and establishment of a compliance framework can possibly accommodate.
Welcome to the future you were promised! It’s already too late.
Steam is a perfectly fine experience and captchas are the universal standard these days. They lost someone who's 'not really a game person' and wasn't willing to fill in a captcha for a free game, I don't think they're too worried about lost revenue. I highly doubt tracking down and downloading a legit version of the updated Half-Life from a torrent site is an easier option, but you do you.
Steam is a ... somwehat tolerable experience. The client is extremely bloated for its primary function (installing and launching games) and this is only getting worse.
Steam is also dropping support for older operating systems - ones that you originally used to buy your games. That is also NOT perfectly fine.
Grid and Flex serve different purposes for layout. Also Grid has many of the same keywords as flex, but is more complex. I wouldn't call it more intuitive.
For anyone unsure whether to use flex or grid, the mental shorthand that I use is whether the container or the elements in a container should have more control over the layout.
Flex is better if the individual elements should have some control over the layout, whereas grid is better if the container should be fully controlling the layout.
Another data point I use is that if I find myself adding a container for the sole purpose of layout, I realize that I should be using grid. That is one of the biggest wins of grid: you don't need to pollute your markup with nearly as many layout/presentation-only elements.
For anyone unsure whether to use flex or grid, the mental shorthand that I use is whether the container or the elements in a container should have more control over the layout.
I guess I’m wondering why it’s any more complicated than:
* Flexbox is for formatting in one dimension (or axis)—a row or a column.
* Grid is for layout in 2-dimensions—columns and rows; a.k.a. a grid.
In fact, you can use flexbox and grid in the same layout, each doing its thing.
What I'd add your summary: Flex wrapping is a different kind of 2-dimension behavior than a grid, but they're both useful 2 dimensional layout behaviors.
In fact, you can use flexbox and grid in the same layout, each doing its thing.
100% At 17:30 near the end of that video I linked is an example of mixing them.
Are there any layout behaviors that are possible to achieve with flexbox but impossible with grid? Basically, setting aside inversion of control at the moment, does grid subsume flexbox?
Even the deconstructed pancake example in the posted article doesn't seem to be impossible with CSS grid but I haven't given it too much thought.
Grid and Flex serve different purposes for layout. Also Grid has many of the same keywords as flex, but is more complex.
I find CSS Grid easier to understand than Flex. I also think it's easier (arguably more logical) to start with Grid and then understand Flexbox and how fits in your Grid.
The problem is that popular frameworks like Bootstrap and Bulma still don't support CSS Grid (they use flexbox only for layout, although Bootstrap 5 has opt-in CSS Grid). You could argue that CSS Grid makes frameworks redundant for layouts only.
Developers have rightly complained how cumbersome CSS layout has been in the past. It's ironic CSS Grid is available in all modern browsers but developers still aren't using it.
Not sure, but grid seems to be not very framework-able. Bootstrap frees you from choosing geometry by traditional grid system where you just class-mark columns and that's it. CSS grid is a whole new ~sublanguage that you have to master.
To be fair they jump right to the nuance of why you'd choose them, assuming you know who they are. Coca-Cola's website doesn't tell you what coke is, it talks about experiences/moments..etc. I share your frustration to some extent but I understand their reasoning.
Coca-Cola, Nike ... are some magnitudes different in brand recognition. They can afford to do that. I find it quite frustating when I'm on some startups' websites and after 1-3 clicks around I still don't know what their products or services do, lost in marketing/tech jargons. After that I just quit. Come on people, use English!
"To be fair they jump right to the nuance of why you'd choose them, assuming you know who they are.
Coke is 1) a drink. and 2) 7 Billion people know what it is.
Vercel is 1) complicate and 2) nobody knows who they are.
It's such an embarrassing problem for them, I find it hard to fathom how they even have new users, much of their language is dense and ridiculous like this.
Your boss will love (or not) to be on the bleeding edge of serverless, or using latest tech. That way he can impress his boss or feel safe. All feelings.
Wasting an hour to cancel a service that I no longer need is just not right. Besides there are many services that require me to write a letter for cancellation.
This is fundamentally wrong. We need this kind of rule in USA too, so, companies cannot exploit their customers.
I had signed up for Disney+ when they launched. I decided to cancel after few months. They had no option to cancel online. I had to spend an hour on hold before I could talk to someone and cancel. I decided I will never subscribe to Disney+ again. I don’t know if the cancellation still requires calling them.
