nerdjon

Not entirely sure where you get that I am not seeing what is happening.

All I am saying is that we need to be better than them and not twisting information to fit what we want to say.

That doesn’t remove or diminish any criticism of trump and this administration but let’s actually fight lies with facts instead of stooping to their level.

It would not be a good look at all (hypothetically since I don’t know) if we go after Palentir for this app and its all trump this, trump that. And it comes to light that the contract started under Obama for example. That doesn’t mean we don’t criticize them, it doesn’t mean we don’t criticize trump, it doesn’t mean we don’t protest ICE. But it means that we don’t try to say that ALL of this is under trump.

We are constantly calling them out for lying, half truths, twisting truths, etc. We must be better than them or we look like hypocrites and all that does is make it harder to get people to actually come out and vote for our side when it matters.

We get absolutely nowhere if we just blindly blame trump for everything. All it does is give the other side ammunication to paint us as just “anti trump” when they can poke holes in our information. We have to be better than them.

We have to have all of the information and actually inform people instead of the half and twisted “truths” that is all that ever spew from this administration.

It doesn’t change or diminish what is going on right now, but it changes some of the conversation around this particular contract.

I guarantee you that if this contract started under the Obama or Biden administration and we just conveniently ignore that, it will come back and bite us in the ass. This app existing before this administration, what form did it exist, and how much use did it get is critical information.

I am all for criticizing and pointing fingers at trump and this entire administration.

But it does say they have been working with ICE for “years” in the article. What is not really clear to me is was the app made worse recently, was it originally commissioned under trump?

Nothing about that changes that they should not be working with ICE and they deserve any pressure they get to cut ties. But there is some history here I am very curious about.

All of that being said, I am concerned about how this will be turned around and used in more than just ICE and targeting everyone. Especially since we can be sure this will be used in largely blue big cities.

Do you mean when the computer is not in use or “unused” in the sense that even when gaming it is just being used for gaming and not something “productive”.

2 very different arguments and not fully clear which you are trying to make.

It will be interesting to see what the long term impact of this will be, the headline misses the biggest part that they (if the phrasing they use is correct) should be producing more of the lower speced (and cheaper) 5060 8GB model.

So while the news is not great, I think it is far from any doom and gloom if we are in fact going to be getting more 5060 cards.

As it is the value of the crazy higher speced cards was questionable with most developers targeting console specs anyways. But it does bring to question how this might impact the next generation of consoles and if those will be scaled back.

We will likely be seeing some stagnation of capability for a couple years. Maybe once the bubble pops all the work that went into AI chips can come back to gaming chips and we can have a big leap in capability.

As someone who daily drives Safari as primary browser on Mac, iPhone, and iPad figured I would comment on each of those:

> translation

Safari has Translation built in

> favicon bookmarks

Yeah to my knowledge this is not possible (someone correct me if I am wrong), but I also fail to see the value given how large screens are today and favicons are kinda terrible.

> Google Lens

That alone is a reason for me not to use chrome.

> better autofill/autologin

I have never had any major issue with autofill or login on Safari. It pulls in my contact information when filling out a form, it pulls in my credit card information, and it pulls in one time codes from mail and messages when those happen. The only real issue I have here is that I use both Apple Passwords and 1Password and the popups for both interfere, but I doubt that is really a safari unique issue.

> better performance for web apps generally

Do we have data to back that up? Websites perform just fine for me.

> Another very useful property is being able to sync your Chrome profile on any computer, which comes in very handy when you need to do stuff on computers you do not own. Doing the same with Safari is possible but a hassle.

Not sure if syncing with a computer you don't own is really a feature that we should be encouraging? That seems really bad advice.

Regardless, outside of Windows (which I just don't care or have any desire to have my main computing sync too) Safari syncs just fine between my devices I care for it to sync too.

> Apple should go back to releasing a cross-platform version

I disagree with the "Seriously" part but I agree in spirit. I would love to have Safari on Windows again so I can never use Chrome or Firefox again. As far as other apps being on Windows, I care less but I would love to see icloud.com improved when needed in a pinch.

I have never understood the complaints about Safari and at this point it feels more like parroting than anything grounded in facts.

Unless I am using Windows (which I use for anything except gaming sparingly) Safari is my primary browser on my Mac and I stick with it on my iPhone and iPad. It does what I need it to do and I never have issues as a user. It works with the plugins I need it to work with (mostly 1Password).

I am sure there are genuine issues with the browser just like with any software, but it is already past "decent" and does its job.

Sure, it is perfectly valid to complain all you want. But it is also important to remember the context here.

I could write an article and complain about Taco Bell not selling burgers and that is perfectly within my right but that is something they are clearly not interested in doing. So me saying I am not going to give them money until they start selling burgers is a meaningless too them.

Everything I have seen about how they have marketed Claude Code makes it clear that what you are paying for is a tool that is a combination of a client-side app made by them and the server component.

Considering the need to tell the agent that the tool you are using is something it isn't, it is clear that this ever working was not the intention.

I am sure the company is going to get very upset at people no longer paying who were using their product in a way that they did not intend. Just going to be heartbroken. I will never understand the people that make a big deal about "I will never support this business again because of x" when X not something the company ever officially said they cared about.

In all seriousness, I really don't think it should be a controversial opinion that if you are using a companies servers for something that they have a right to dictate how and the terms. It is up to the user to determine if that is acceptable or not.

Particularly when there is a subscription involved. You are very clearly paying for "Claude Code" which is very clearly a piece of software connected to an online component. You are not paying for API access or anything along those lines.

Especially when they are not blocking the ability to use the normal API with these tools.

I really don't want to defend any of these AI companies but if I remove the AI part of this and just focus on it being a tool, this seems perfectly fine what they are doing.

I doubt that anyone is actually suggesting that Siri should not be better, but to me I think the issues with it are very much overblown when it does what I actually ask it to do the vast majority of the time since the reality is most of the time what I actually want to ask it to do are basic things.

I have a several homepods, and it does what I ask it to do. This includes being the hub of all of my home automation.

Yes there are areas it can improve but I think the important question is how much use would those things actually get vs making a cool announcement, a fun party trick, and then never used again.

We have also seen the failures that have been done by trying to treat LLM as a magic box that can just do things for you so while these things are "Technically" possible they are far from being reliable.

I am also trying to think of what else could actually be fueling this, since it sounds very... not republican. Quite literally the opposite.

Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said.

I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.

All of the reporting about Apple being behind on AI is driving me insane and I hope that what Dell is doing is finally going to be the reversal of this pattern.

The only thing that Apple is really behind on is shoving the word (word?) "AI" in your face at every moment when ML has been silently running in many parts of their platforms well before ChatGPT.

Sure we can argue about Siri all day long and some of that is warranted but even the more advanced voice assistants are still largely used for the basics.

I am just hoping that this bubble pops or the marketing turns around before Apple feels "forced" to do a copilot or recall like disaster.

LLM tech isn't going away and it shouldn't, it has its valid use cases. But we will be much better when it finally goes back into the background like ML always was.

This seems to be changing in some areas. I am in the US, in my 30's, Male and I only had my $30 copay for the first visit (nothing for my second shot)

Are there insurance plans that won't cover it? I know that a lot of plans love not paying for things but vaccines seem to be the one thing that they all at least seem fairly good at (at least in my experience).

I am currently getting the HPV series and I only had to pay my copay for the first appointment have nothing for the second one (I am assuming it will be the same for the third)

I mean I get that point and I get what they think they are doing.

But (well until the last couple of years) you would have still seen "different" people on tv and in movies.

And I get that the point is to make it so the kids are not being exposed to different ideas and beliefs. I am just struggling to understand how that is actually a realistic idea in todays world.

There is a part of me seriously considering making a bookshelf dedicated to all of these banned books.

I don't understand the logic of banning these books, do they act like the internet doesn't exist? Kids will find this information, I found plenty of information about being gay 20ish years ago in high school.

Then again being short sited is one of their strong suits.

(Not downplaying banned books, I just can't understand thinking it is a good idea)

Something I have been very curious about for some time now. We know the quality of the code is not very high and has a high likelihood of bugs.

But, assuming there are not bugs and the code ships. Has there been any study in resource usage creeping up and an impact of this on a whole system. The tests I have done with trying to build things with AI it always seems like there is zero efficiency unless you notice it and can put it in the right direction.

I have been curious about the impact this will have on general computing as more low quality code makes it into applications we use every day.

That would be my guess, I know personally yesterday I finally setup Forgejo and today I plan to evaluate its runners or even just using a dedicated CI like woodpecker.

Not fully sure what I will do regarding any open source repo's yet, but at least anything private I am already in the process of moving away.

This was something I already wanted to do for privacy concerns (especially possibility using private repo's to train AI) so this was just the push I needed.

I mean I saw that, but I just can't imagine this is thing that you are honestly doing that much...

But also:

> you can move the repo to a different path

Pretty sure this alone is a non issue.

> place it on a thumb drive to a different machine and it will work without reconfiguring.

I go back to this being terrible security. If you loose that drive someone now has your key and the ability to figure out where that key is valid for.

My question was more the git command in the article I was curious about, I have never used that command myself and I was not sure if there was a weird limitation (possibly related to the git context) that it only worked with files within the git repo.

I am just trying to figure out how we are jumping from storing in ~/.ssh to storing in the repo here.

So I have never actually tried, but could you not just have multiple SSH keys in your .ssh folder and run the same command in the article telling git specifically which one to use instead of one within the git directory?

That seems like it would fix the issue here without introducing a major security issue.

To be blunt... If I was security at a company and found out someone was doing this, I would question why they have the right to use git frankly.

Edit: I should have clicked through to the superuser article which answered my question that this is perfectly fine with git and having multiple in .ssh.

So honest question... why did you think this was a necessary "twist" worth the risks of copying those files to a location it should not be?

The obvious solution is just to throw more LLM's at it to verify the output of the other LLM and that it is doing its job...

\s (mostly because you know this will be the "Solution" that many will just run with despite the very real issue of how "persuadable" these systems are)...

The real answer is that even that will fail and there will have to be a feedback loop with a human that will likely in many cases lead to more churn trying to fix the work the AI did vs if the human just did it in the first place.

Instead of focusing on the places that using an AI tool can truly cut down on time spent like searching for something (which can still fail but at least the risk when a failure is far lower vs producing output).

I wonder if this will also impact VSCodium. I use it specifically to avoid a lot of the crap that Microsoft is trying to do while still being able to use the editor and plugins.

They have not released 1.107 yet, doing a quick scan I am not seeing anything on the VSCodium github.

It frustrates me that this is where we have come too.

I refuse to connect any of my TV's to the internet but I have to wonder how long until a few different things happen:

- The TV's just connect to unsecure Wifi and collect the data anyways (I think there were reports of at least one manufacture already doing this at one point?). Or just make a deal with xfinity to use their mesh network that seems to be everywhere.

- The TV's don't work without being connected to the internet.

- The manufactures find out that the cost of adding in a cellular modem is justified by the increase in data they can collect.

I would love the idea of buying a modern TV without any of this crap shoved in, I happily use my Apple TV for everything that isnt video games.

It bothers me though when it seems like to fix an issue with HDR or something I need to update the firmware. I have wondered on occasion if this is intentional to "force" people to connect. If I have to do this I will run an ethernet cable to temporarily connect.

> This never happened. We did not overprescribe Ritalin.

I think it is important to stress a difference between "over medicated", "over prescribed", and "over dosed" (often also called over medicated, something I have been guilty of).

An example being my partner, apparently when he was a kid and diagnosed with ADHD he was put on a very high (I am only relaying what I was told) dose that he hated being on. That has caused him now as an adult to be very cautious to go back on the medication.

Where as for myself I was not diagnosed until an adult, was able to actually advocate for myself and I started on the lowest dose possible for all of my medications (also treating Anxiety and Depression). While I do take several medications I would not consider myself over medicated because we have identified that at this point in time all of these medications are actually helpful, but I am very cautious of being on too high of a dose for each of these.

I do think there are likely people that were put on too high of a dose too quickly to expedite treatment, but being on the medication in the first place was not the issue. It doesn't mean that the diagnoses was wrong though.

Please point me to anywhere that it is treated as a single thing that isn't the people using Autism to push an anti-science agenda.

It is an Umbrella term that is well understood to be a "spectrum" and well understood to not be the same for 2 different people.

My question though, what is the point of separating it. What do we actually gain from doing so? I guarantee you these attacks will still exist.

I don't have a degree in this but I have to imagine there was a good reason that Aspergers is no longer its own diagnosis.

That is exactly what I meant to say which is why I added an edit. I for sure could have phrased that a lot better.

Now yes there are people who are undiagnosed for whatever reason (including some people I know that don't see the point after being diagnosed with ADHD, I know personally I had to have this conversation with my psychologist to determine if there was a point to actually do it at that point) that use that phrase and it gets a bit tricky.

But nowhere am I trying to imply that *everyone* is saying this.

> Still this “everyone is a bit autistic” stuff is kind of absurd. It diminishes the condition.

Again nowhere am I saying that.

Maybe I could have worded it much better but I never meant to imply, it happens that like myself a larger portion of the people I hang out with are diagnosed which for me works with just saying "most people" but I can see why that was not clear.

So... you agree with what I am saying?

My point is, if it is commonplace to refer to Autism as a spectrum we are already acknowledging that it is not a single thing.

Which seems to be the entire basis of this article while also mixing in the rambling of someone anti-science that frankly won't change even if it was split up.

I have never in my life used "autism is my super power" so please don't put words in my mouth. I will agree that it is offensive but that is very different from saying "somewhere on the spectrum" when I don't feel like having a more in dept conversation.

And again my point is that contrary to what the article seems to be trying to make, no one really considers Autism a single thing.