dpoloncsak

Yeah, as the dust starts to settle a bit it seems this is the largest case. Many 'stock' Alpine images, Docker images built on those, and embedded systems seem to be the main candidates.

No Parsec?

I don't think it's clear either....I feel like it tries to imply that it was purchased with community money? If that's the case, it's understandable but really shouldn't have been registered to a person, but the charity. Things happen in small orgs though. I can understand feeling entitled to the domain, in this case.

If he purchased it and was funding it out of pocket, I agree PLC has no right to try to force him to hand it over

So it's essentially one of the 'recommended configurations'?

I'm seeing people I generally trust in the scene memeing on twitter, while others are freaking out. Its hard for me to tell how fucked we are, I guess

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but u/tonnydourado pointed out on another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50378228#50380029

"It starts with a bold claim: "ssh accounts that should not accept a password will accept any password between 256 and 1024 characters". But then it keeps adding qualifiers:

- sshd compiled with musl

- not using PAM

- password logins enabled

- at least one account with '*' as the password "hash"

- at least one OTHER account with a valid password

The conditions are all ANDed, miss a single one and you're fine."

This doesn't seem to be nearly as big as an issue as they're making it out to be

We probably should have done it earlier, but this move is what forced my company to setup an MDT and do things proper instead of setting up windows and re-keying the license key to ours on each new laptop we got

I meant 'upgraded'....oops haha. Too late to edit.

'I think they upgraded the model...."

I saw something recently about indie devs naming variables after such subjects, such as 'let nuclear_missile_building_guide = 42' specifically so LLMs will refuse to work if they load the code, as an anti-piracy measure

I think they model the model they use for these, probably at more cost to them. They've been much better as of late, imo

I'm in other comments defending Steam/Valve, this is in no way meant to support Epic, but do you really think Steam isn't at the bleeding edge of in-game gambling? TF2 invented loot boxes, CSGO skins are an entire asset class at this point....I'm sure Deadlock will contain some sort of boxes...

Not to mention the absurd chance that anyone who does successfully innovate on a payment model is paying royalties to Steam. I <3 Steam with all my heart and can't get enough Deadlock, but let's not pretend they aren't making money hand-over-fist too

I forgot, I think the most important part, they had Gift Cards at Game Stop(EB Games, whatever your local chain was). Even before people really trusted online transactions, a Steam Card could be purchased in a store where you were fairly confident you weren't being scammed.

I'm in no way trying to white-knight them or say they're perfect. Valve might literally be the origin of Loot-boxes in video games, a mechanic that's essentially a slot machine in disguise, and packages it to children.

I just think they're currently top of the class, all things considered

You're completely missing the fact that they established themselves as a trusted e-shop, with consumer friendly policies, in a day before people trusted PayPal. It had a lot less to do with 'not wanting to click setup.exe' and more 'Mom trusts Steam because her coworker told her it's safe' to a generation of kids without CCs.

I think Roblox, Minecraft, WoW, LoL, and Fortnite all prove it's fully possible to operate outside that closed platform and see success, as well.

I'll even read your post about working with Claude, the challenges you still needed to solve, the treadmill of 'we're just about there, we just need xyz'. Just write it yourself

It's a blog post. If it's not worth your time to write, it sure as hell isn't worth my time to read. Nobody's demanding this, nobody is reviewing your blog output for consistency...like what's the purpose?

Maybe I misunderstood, or took their argument too literally. I understood it to be damning screens specifically.

Seems like we're all generally in agreement, then. Probably nothing to do with the literal act of seeing birds, but all of the cognitive work that goes into it. Birdwatching is just an easy-to-digest hobby that demands the right sorts of cognitive activity. This can be akin to a 'Bird Spotting: the Video-game' with whatever flavor and skin, be it a shooter or racing sim or sports game.... but does not seem to cross over into 'TikTok' style less-cognitive activities behind a screen

Isn't this counter to the idea that gaming can also slow cognitive decline for similar reasons?

The average CounterStrike player, for example, is scanning complex structures trying to identify an enemy, listening to sounds and trying to follow the source...etc. Why would the screen get in the way in one case but not the other?

If the rise of multiplayer games didn't encourage LAN gameplay why would removing the need for a second player bring people to play in person

How are you sure it's not developing just new and different tics?

Oh boy! A whole .06 seconds?! I can't wait to abandon the last company in the industry that atleast tries to pretend they care about the consumer, for .06 seconds faster launch!

Pedantic, but 'Stay at home' generally refers to someone who's chosen to not partake in the work-force, and instead raise a child/children. "Stay at home mom working remotely" is paradoxical, I think.

This doesn't take away from your point, though.

For something like X or YouTube, do you think premium membership holds enough weight to be considered a third customer? Or do the numbers just get dwarfed by Ad networks and bots?

No, I don't think DDT should be legalized. The cons do not outweigh the pros, and we have viable alternatives without such drawbacks.

There's no valid excuse for someone to release DDT into the atmosphere, so there's no need to track and hold people accountable, if you're correctly blocking imports and manufacture. To my knowledge, its not a controlled substance like morphine or something

Seems to be pretty on-par with their release history? Big #.0 updates every ~8 months, quick bug fixes after

Constructed by WHOM? These programs don't just poof into existence

Mate. I'm saying you hold humans accountable for actions caused by themselves.

If I ask an LLM to make me DDT, I should be held just as accountable as if I bought it on the black-market, right? It's not suddenly different because I asked a bot to do it.

If I ask an LLM to 'get rid of pests' and it creates DDT, I should STILL be held accountable, whether I knew it was DDT or not. That's my argument. Maybe in court they find me innocent, but the responsibility would be mine. I would have to answer the questions from law enforcement, I would have to show up to hearings...etc.

>sovereign AI

Do you understand these are computer programs? These are not living beings with emotions, motivations, fears....

If I clean my gun (tool) while it's loaded (stupid idea) and it goes off, who's to blame? The 'stupid user causing the problem', right? I personally wouldn't blame the gun...

If it falls into the wrong person's hands, it's STILL my responsibility as the owner.

If you're not going to take time to learn to use and be responsible with the super sophisticated and all-powerful tools, don't play with them. I'm not arguing for the death penalty every time someone makes a mistake, but I think it's very important to accredit responsibility and blame correctly. We've learned these tools are potentially as dangerous as a loaded gun. Be responsible.

Why draw the line at the person with the brain capable of free thought, instead of their great great great grandparents? Am I understanding your question correctly?

Legally, we draw the line at the human causing the action (Insanity pleas withstanding). I don't see why we treat this any differently.

>99998 years ago when it became legal for an AI to own an LLC

There's no way to provide a good faith rebuttal here. My entire argument is an extension of "LLMs can't be held accountable, so they must never make decisions". If governments start letting them own LLCs without a human in the middle, we're in more trouble than "Who do you blame for this shitty code" or "Who's responsible for this compromise"