mminer237

Ubuntu typically has more packages available and newer versions of them, besides supporting PPAs and Snaps to expand the easily available software.

Also, Gnome and KDE are both horribly unintuitive for newcomers. Ubuntu makes a several tweaks to Gnome to make it more user-friendly. Debian just gives a list of names and says to choose one or more.

It is mostly just inertia though.

A huge volume of stocks are traded at market price every day. I don't think that's a dishonest valuation at all.

$2–3 trillion dollars would honestly be about the right price to do that.

Calculating shares is basically impossible from DNS records and easily abusable.

That is basically the whole premise of the Brave browser though.

Basically whoever has the deepest pockets to burn the most AI time.

Yeah, Linode still hasn't updated their mirror. Vultr has though.

Edit: Linode just updated its mirror.

Thanks. The relevant quote:

> We have done some preliminary assessment, there appears to be a flaw in the KGC script that was used on that specific day to create these ECC issuers. As for these ECC keys, our review of the KGC, assessment of the code and view of HSM keys so far indicate that a) a set of original ECC keys were created onboard as expected b) an approved deviation to our usual KGC to test a wrap/unwrap was introduced as these keys were meant for export for this instance c) a flaw in the code resulted in the second pair of keys being created onboard which were weaker d) these second pair of weaker keys were used by mistake to create the csr (because the key labels were similar) and signed by our root e) the CSR from these weaker keys were also sent over to Sectigo for cross signing (we verified the files sent over to Sectigo)

So you can know it's correct and fix mistakes?

Most large cities in the world have had thousands of public CCTV cameras for decades. Traffic enforcement cameras have been super normal for even longer.

It's just marketing. They want people to believe they're selling super intelligence that is powerful enough to destroy the world of it fell into the wrong hands. It's much more effective than saying that you have a slightly more effective slop generator which obviously has no actual intelligence.

They don't taste the same, they're much more expensive, and I worry what sort of negative health effects all the ingredients may have.

"Designed to influence…voting behaviour" is incredibly vague. A play with political undertones could absolutely fit that definition. I understand that's not what was intended by the law, but if someone was advertising plays with support for policies you didn't like, you likely would be calling that political.

More relevantly, a broad, vague policy means an EU regulator can prosecute Meta whenever they feel like it if Meta does not go overboard.

This actually is a result of Meta being forced to obey EU law. Not sure why the article didn't explain things at all, but Regulation (EU) 2024/900 greatly restricts political advertising with typical vagueness, so Meta is enforcing a broad ban to ensure they comply.

Yes, I was initially confused by the title and the content talking about two different things. I've edited my post with the correct numbers now. Even the household numbers are wrong, and the taxes and benefits numbers are very wrong.

Very hard to parse, not very helpful, and blatantly wrong. Cutting through the slop, the "bottom 50% of households" average income is said to be $22,907 without any expenses? The middle 20% making $60,298? That's...very obviously incorrect.

The median household income is $83,730: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N

The average for the bottom 50% of households is $30,000-something. Would take too much effort to figure out the exact figure for a comment, but still way higher what this site says, and I still feel like this is more effort than went into this misinformation site.

Its own linked source says that for 2022 the bottom quintile makes $26.2k before taxes and transfers and $44.8k after, while this site says $17.2k after. No wonder it's coming up with such wacky conclusions like saying a majority of America is going into debt while only buying the bare essentials and nothing else. If you use the correct income numbers, even the bottom quintile averages out to having $16k extra after essentials.

It's a basic principle of copyright that only a natural person can be an author.

The US Copyright Office has stated such: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

The Council of the EU has also stated such AFAIK.

Not to mention the adversarial risk. Prompt injection, LLM-maximized advertising, and just common scams are going to take so much money if these catch on.

Yeah, sorry, I tried to imply that. Publicly available on a website is included in "otherwise legally view".

Running code through a deterministic formatter definitely helps a lot, but I've generally found LLMs' comments to add no-to-negative value. They just say what code does, typically very verbosely that just inflates files more while also just stating the most obvious aspects of the code and not adding any meaning behind it because they obviously don't know that. Not to the mention all the cases where they make mistakes and then you have code you don't intuitively understand and also have comments telling you it does something it doesn't.

Rulings have said that reproduction of AI models which were trained on copyrighted material are not violating the copyright on those materials. The initial copying of those materials without paying is illegal regardless. You still have to buy or otherwise legally view a copy of the book/movie/photo to train your model on it.

I think everyone here is well aware of what LLMs can do. He's just pointing out how far short that falls of being some theoretical "AGI".

Video on it from the creator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqPARIKHbN8

The UI is pretty similar. It's very intuitive for someone used to Paint.NET. Pinta definitely satisfies my desire for Paint.NET on Linux.

Pinta is obviously not as capable, but yeah, it's by far the most usable general-purpose photo editor on Linux that I've found.

Neat idea, but feels very poorly made.

The light direction governs the whole grid for some reason but stops outside an arbitrary div and often just stops working period, on top of feeling laggy for such a simple effect.

Channels are messed up. The example doesn't seem to work, while in the video it just makes two edges white for some reason?

The color options and textures are kinda ugly. The glass colors clearly just don't work. "Brass" turns into "Olive" on the last one for no reason?

The radio buttons are a bad idea for a digital interface, implemented completely inconsistently(‽), and the middle one just doesn't work at all.

Buttons have virtually no feedback if they're pressed or not.

Reminds me a lot of Google's material design, at least the older versions of it, just much sloppier and less usable and less colorful.

Percentages aren't always the right gauge. uv isn't something I run frequently or for long periods of time. It's like a couple seconds every month or whatever. I would rather spend an extra second waiting every year to have hundreds more megabytes all the time.

This doesn't have anything to do with water usage? The rationale of banning it is that it's copyright status is ambiguous and at the least unethical, it produces lower quality code, and it stifles new developers from getting involved.

Infinite growth is impossible, therefore the deficit has to be paid down some day.

Read the court's forms and instructions then. LLMs are notoriously inaccurate regarding the law and conflating every legal system. Going in blind is better than going in misled by an "AI".