I want more customers like you, eat your slop and say thank you.
745 karma · joined June 9, 2021
Absolutely all coding agents should be run in sandboxed containers, 24/7, if you do otherwise, please don't cry when you're pwned.
This seems to be circular since it assumes that 1 is not prime
Likewise, for some, there is nothing premium about a product that 1) becomes a paperweight when a single component fails or is no longer sufficient to satisfy the user's changing desires. 2) Hasn't had engineering time and BOM on high-cost materials devoted to making the device easy-to-repair, or has had engineering resources spent making the device hostile to repair.
Framework doesn't just give you permission to repair and modify their product, they have engineered and designed a product that is easy and intuitive to repair and modify, and made out of materials that are designed and selected to endure being touched and manipulated, one great example that probably comes to mind for many FW13 owners that have opened the device is the touchpad cable finger loop in the FW13.
As any technician or DIY enthusiast might tell you, the materials e.g. Apple uses that you interact with during disassembly aren't exactly robustly made, and there is no sign that care or good taste was used when designing the disassembly procedures. But again, it depends on what you want, for some fragility enhances their experience of an object as premium and they have no interesting in upgrading/repairing their own device so the quality of that experience is irrelevant.
I really wish free(libre) tools existed that allowed you to do your work. Hopefully they will in the future, I am sure someone has tried/is trying to build them.
You are ignoring what I said and just reasserting your hegemonic view of scholarly institutions / scientific work. On the contrary, if you zoom out it becomes obvious that our academic research in these matters is ephemeral heat and noise that gets rolled into the dustbins of time.
If cryptography researchers were keeping their results secret to within their institution / research circle, instead of sharing with academic community / public, would that advantage or disadvantage the NSA relative to the researchers? I think the answer is obvious, and it's a pretty excellent analogy for the US-China situation.
Over a big round table with cigar smoke in the air it's natural to come to the conclusion that the closed party can always outpace any set of open parties since it can take the public work and extend it with an advance that it keeps a secret.
In reality, we observe that open parties tend to win, or at minimum, if they lose, the closed party tends to have an entirely disconnected line of research that rarely incorporates ideas from the open party. In the rebasing metaphor, the reason for this is the free coordination an open party gets with other open parties. The closed party never gets to insert its advance into the shared state-of-the-art, so it loses all of the free maintenance of coordination, and it has to choose between paying the maintenance cost of integrating its secret advance with the public SOTA, dropping the secret advance and going back to parity with the public SOTA, or disconnecting from the public SOTA and going all hands in on its own ideas. The maintenance burden of integrating your ideas with the constantly moving SOTA may sound trivial but in practice it is usually prohibitively expensive if there are a lot of parties collaborating on the public SOTA and doesn't leave you with much time/budget to find new secret advances.
Right now in the US, we have all of the disadvantages of the open model: the closed parties of the world can cheaply take ideas they like from Meta, Google, OpenAI and mix them with private advances, and all of the disadvantages of the closed model: our domestic tech industry keeps all of its technology a secret from other domestic competitors, and gets none of the coordination benefits of open research / technology, independents and startups are not only unable to access information about the SOTA, but they are actively attacked by the existing monopoly players with any means available when they approach it independently, including using their access to massive capital to drain the talent pool, or being bought outright. And, as we are all too familiar with, the entrenched players don't even care that much about whether or not they can even use the talent efficiently, denying it to competitors is worth more.
Reconstruction, (similar to translation) is an art that combines carefuly study of evidence and craftfully filling in gaps and adding in detail where necessary (or leaving details unfilled and ambiguous to communicate the impossibility of total translation or reconstruction!) to present some communicable form of the original that gives the viewer some closer but imperfect access to it.
It could just as well be said that a bunch of scholars disconnected from the culture, history, and technique of fine arts (except as objects of scholarly interest) are wildly speculating from the outside about the nature of the objects, and people interested in these things are starting to ask "Why are these silly things being said about the topic I'm interested in? Are the people behind this pranksters?"
Anyways, if there is a misunderstanding here, which I don't doubt is the case for at least some of the people involved, why can't the discourse be had in public about it? The question has been asked as you suggest...publicly. Polychromic revivalists are free to respond in public, and we can all benefit from hearing the more nuanced perspectives get expressed.
https://journals.openedition.org/techne/2656?lang=en
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/true-colors-1788...
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/12/1109995973/we-know-greek-stat...
https://bigthink.com/high-culture/greek-statues-painted/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-wh...
https://steemit.com/news/@beowulfoflegend/greek-statues-were...