KubeRoot

Ah, reminds me of this good old collection of stories http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/

I don’t know what the source is, but I remember seeing the “AI” bit first, and then a bit later people started editing it more and more, escalating things. I’d check sites like knowyourmeme if I wasn’t lazy right now.

I don’t think OOP’s nature makes them necessary, so much so as it enables them and popular programming principles encourage them. I think they’re a good thing, especially if there’s a way around them in case you can’t get the public interface changed and it doesn’t work for you, especially for performance reasons, but that should be done with care.

Funny story, when modding Unity games using external modloaders you’re writing C# code that references the game’s assemblies. And with modding you often need to access something that the developers made private/protected/internal. Now, you can use reflection for that, but a different trick you can use is to publicize the game’s assemblies for referencing in your code, and add an attribute to your assembly that tells the runtime to just… Let you ignore the access checks. And then you can just access everything as public.

If it was a single question, that does sound lame, my other thought was that those “online polling tools” might not be viable because you can’t put internal company communications into them… But if it’s stuff like food choices or something, then that might also not be a problem.

That said, my point still stands - what you describe does sound like what I’m saying. If you make a sheet with a dedicated field to put the answer into, it should be possible to reliably automate pulling out answers from all the files with excel-level knowledge, and without any additional sites or servers, just spreadsheet editing software and email.

Am I getting it correctly that the excel sheet was basically a form to fill in, with fields and labels, but as a spreadsheet? If so, that sounds pretty clever to me - there’re many better ways to do this, but if everybody working there has excel anyways, that’s a fast and easy way to get the data in a unified and automatable format without any extra infrastructure.

Always has been

And then fuck it up by pointing Linux at your windows EFI partition, end up with neither system bootable and make things worse as you panic and try to rush a fix without understanding what you’re doing.

If you’re new to how it all works and having a working machine is important, best to keep it simple and as separated as you can.

I’m also not convinced that “Windows doesn’t know about the other partitions”, that sounds like the kind of thing that’s true until it isn’t and it overwrites your Linux bootloader.

Oh I would hope not, it’s good practice to not let the person writing the code merge it in, to get a fresh pair of eyes on the code before it goes in.

Though in a way you could say he “fixed a bug” by merging a bugfix written by somebody else, but that feels like a failure of attribution.

I believe they’ve made the point that it’s not chrome’s fault, but the site’s/user’s - images displayed on websites should be webp to benefit from optimizations for displaying images, but download links should be a different format. The error would be either the user downloading the images from the display instead of the download (including from sites that do not offer images for downloading purposes?), or the website not including separate versions for download where relevant.

I’m not necessarily sure if that’s a good take, but that’s my interpretation of what’s being said.

Not entirely sure what you’re referring to, but if you mean that it’s not only markdown, absolutely - what’s immediately relevant here is that it is markdown we’re using here, which can be used to look up formatting and is useful to know where else this syntax will work.

Like this:

> Quote
>
> Second paragraph of quote

Quote

Second paragraph of quote

Note that it’s standard markdown syntax, and also that the contents of the quote are also markdown and should support standard formatting (including nesting quotes inside them)

I’m confused. It’s based on arch but not really? Is it arch based or not? Does it use any arch package manager? The post raises a number of new questions

The answers to that seem pretty obvious to me: yes, it is based on arch. No, it does not come with a package manager. Presumably, they use Arch packaging tools and package definitions behind the scenes in some way, but the end result is a premade immutable system image.

Apertus was developed with due consideration to Swiss data protection laws, Swiss copyright laws, and the transparency obligations under the EU AI Act. Particular attention has been paid to data integrity and ethical standards: the training corpus builds only on data which is publicly available. It is filtered to respect machine-readable opt-out requests from websites, even retroactively, and to remove personal data, and other undesired content before training begins.

We probably won’t get better, but sounds like it’s still being trained on scraped data unless you explicitly opt out, including anything that may be getting mirrored by third parties that don’t opt out. Also, they can remove data from the training material retroactively… But presumably won’t be retraining the model from scratch, which means it will still have that in their weights, and the official weights will still have a potential advantage on models trained later on their training data.

From the license:

SNAI will regularly provide a file with hash values for download which you can apply as an output filter to your use of our Apertus LLM. The file reflects data protection deletion requests which have been addressed to SNAI as the developer of the Apertus LLM. It allows you to remove Personal Data contained in the model output.

Oof, so they’re basically passing on data protection deletion requests to the users and telling them all to respectfully account for them.

They also claim “open data”, but I’m having trouble finding the actual training data, only the “Training data reconstruction scripts”…

Funnily, my performance in trackmania is fine… But I have an entirely different issue - if at any point I open the Ubisoft overlay, from that point on, if I tab out of the game and back in, I’m unable to control the car until I open and close the overlay again. The UI accepts inputs normally, it’s just the car that doesn’t.

Previously I had an issue where the game would refuse to accept controllers being connected while the game was running - the button prompts would actually switch to controller style, but the game would refuse to accept controller inputs, and the controller wouldn’t show up in settings.

But yeah, those are issues very specifically with that game, I don’t even know how they managed that.

Not the same person, but it looks very much like Firefox reader mode.

Not when taken to such an extreme so as to obfuscate the meaning and behavior of code, and make it difficult to understand how you would arrive at that code.

Sane defaults serve to reduce verbosity without obfuscating meaning, simpler syntax with different ordering and fewer tokens reduce verbosity to make the code easier to read by reducing the amount of text you have to pay attention to to understand what the result is.

I imagine there’s also a distinction to be made between verbosity and redundancy - sometimes extra text might fail to carry information, or carry information that’s already carried elsewhere. I’m not sure where the line should be drawn, because sometimes duplicate information can be helpful, and spacing out information with technically meaningless text has value for readability, but I feel like it’s there.

Our public TV has no midroll ads, only between programs, and I’m so happy I can use a guide and usually find something to watch when eating and get no ads. But I’m also watching the endless reruns of a series I like, so that’s also not difficult to get.

This feels like surreal memes before they turned into almost entirely misspellings and other repeat jokes.

I had the impression cloud was about the opposite - detaching your server software from physical machines you manage, instead paying a company to provide more abstracted services, with the ideal being high scalability by having images that can be deployed en masse independent of the specifics of where they’re hosted and on what hardware. Pay for “storage”, instead of renting a machine with specific hardware and software, for example.

Linux users are, as a group, less likely to share accurate telemetry and to masquerade as other OSes

I’m going to assume you meant “more likely” on masquerading, but I do want to point out, Linux users also tend to be more proud of their choice and to want to contribute to the statistics, want to be represented. Maybe those numbers effectively cancel out, but I doubt they significantly lean towards underrepresentation for the reason you mentioned.