They put the onus on AI for the price increase but honestly I believe the ram cartel is responsible to the same degree.

Either way, it looks like we’re soon getting an out, because both of those things are at the brink of changing. And if any one of us has any say in this, they should make sure these things change as fast as possible.

These screenshots are art.

It is not a stupid question.

AI is a statistical model. It emulates how we speak and therefore mimics how we think. But there are essential differences currently.

The size of AI-models is way less than that of our brains (comparing nodes to brain cells) by several orders of magnitude. AI models do simulate associative thinking and pattern thinking really well in some ways, but not very well in others. While an AI can have different sections of brain that can go back and forth (Mixture of Experts), they usually only pass raw numbers through the model one way. Our brain afaik is unidirectional with its electrical signals.

I’m saying this because an AI and a brain have fundamental differences we won’t be able to eliminate as of now. Which means a traditional consciousness as we know from humans or animals in some cases is hard to presume.

That said, a lot of experts recently raised alarms because what is classified as a person, when does thinking start and stop, all of these ethical boundaries need more strict definitions law-wise, because we are definitely fishing at the boundaries.

I know Lemmy doesn’t like AI and will highlight these fundamental differences, but the ethical questions raised are indeed part of a growing corpus of science currently.

Holy

You know when we said it’s the year of

I mean it kinda looks like that’s by design currently. It’s an indexer for your corners of the web, not a search aggregator to find new ones.

Fair

Well January 6 was most definitely a chaotic attempt at a Beer Hall Putsch equivalent.

Looking at false flags specifically, he is talking about past “stolen” elections and is also using election security as pretext to change voting infrastructure with some justification. Although the changes are both legal and illegal at times.

It seems like he managed to repurpose ICE and homeland security into his personal police and spy agency, very akin to the gestapo / SS. He is using immigrants as a scapegoat, no matter their legal status.

I guess it’s harder to find a false flag specifically equivalent to the Reichstag fire, but he is using false flags at almost the same level constantly for different things. So technically no, but practically he’s got one foot on the line. We’ll have to see where he takes this during the elections coming up.

No.

Well, there’s a big difference between consistency and probability.

In that case you might wanna be careful to point out the very experimental ground this stands on.

Let me be honest: 10 billion years until the sun burns out is a lot. The world seems to change fast these last centuries and it’s basically impossible to predict how it’s gonna look in 2050. Therefore I believe crafting a solution that on its face seems to be rather impractical, solving something that will only become a problem in the very distant future, using very long theoretical causational links to predict the trend, and assuming the net gain could be worth it is not helpful. It’s so far removed from normal science, it reminds me of conspiracy theories like the idea that you can somehow use the Giza pyramids as a power source.

You need to think about frame of reference first: you cannot speculate on what we might have and be able to do in the future. You are assuming a bunch of things, and science doesn’t assume, in science you start with the assumption that all of your claims bullshit, and then disprove it. For your theories this will take centuries anyway because there is so many assumptions and some of them will take many papers in order to understand if and how they work.

Some examples:

• Start with the expanding force of the universe: is there one? How big? On which scale does it overcome modern power sources? Confirm multiple different ways that this scale is realistic.
• do the physics work on that scale? Is the expanding force big enough to pull it apart and keep it from folding out? How would gravity from surrounding cosmic bodies affect it? How well does it withstand big and small impacts from different bodies?
• how do you actually translate expansion to energy? What’s the loss to thermal energy? What are typical conversion rates for this? How exactly do you do the conversion? Why would you be able to do some functioning conversion?
• how does it transport the energy back to the point of origin? What kind of cables work with minimal loss over these distances?
• what’s the impact on our electric grid, the impact on gravitational forces, etc.? Would this destabilize our solar system?

You are hovering over your assumptions and this is exactly where quack theories live. That’s why people are extremely suspicious. Everyone can make up a theory on how generating electricity might be possible in the future using technologies we haven’t even invented yet. Sure, we might, but before anyone wants to actually think of that you need to put in the leg work to prove this technology is not only practical but at least one some scale it exists. And you have to do this for all of the things you are assuming.

• the harness
• binding materials
• protective materials
• conductive materials
• resources needed in production
• resources needed in deployment

Let me also stress that no one is annoyed that you think of solutions for problems. People are annoyed because you are the 100th guy dreaming up an incredibly outlandish solution to a problem that doesn’t really affect us in any way currently, and then you are winging the parts that scientists spend most of their time on. Lots of math, lots of different ways to confirm the math, field studies, disproving, collaboration, etc., there’s so much more to it.

Trust, if there’s interesting aspects to it, and you find people outside of your circles that find your theories somewhat plausible, you should try to get a peer-review. And then you probably have to do a bunch of follow up research, but that’s how scientific consensus moves: slowly and in tiny chunks.

I assume it has to do with it kind of directly competing with steamos and eating into the user share?

Ngl I don’t get the downvotes.

I have no opinion on pro or contra rust in the Linux Kernel. I have no dog in the fight and I do not understand it well enough.

Or did I get something wrong? The email chains are there. The core developers did argue. Linus did chime in. That one dev stopped working on it. what am I missing?

I’m so confused.

Interesting, that’s a real change to the last discussion in the email chains where they kind pushed rust out of the core development and said they would need to fork the kernel / make their own smaller modules to bs adopted.

I still remember one of the maintainers leaving over concerns about multiple languages in the kernel and Linus Torvalds having to chime in personally to set the new direction.

I’m gonna be the donkey with the obligatory “please talk to an expert”.

Joke aside, you might wanna consult with a psycho/speech therapist. The other symptoms you are described might not be related but they could be and you always wanna tackle the problem, not the symptom.

Depends how strict you mean. A friend of mine got a stickman on his index finger and a trampoline on his thumb so he can pull them together and apart to make the stickman bounce on it.

It’s funny, but it’s also extremely meaningless. Technically the meaning could be fun but I don’t think there is a real one.

So no. I personally prefer tattoos on myself to have meaning, but I also heard usually the more tattoos you have the less important meaning becomes and lots of times people do it because it looks cool. Especially broad patterns and things like sleeves lean more into a design than into meaningful motifs, so that’s a whole category of tattoos that doesn’t necessarily have a meaning. And that’s only a small part of tattoos.

Yeah you got me

I used to like treyarch btw

There’s a lot of words and they mean different things to different people.

What is “free”?

If all speech is free from consequences, that’s something the law cannot regulate. If someone kicks you in the face for calling him a bitch, the law can only punish him retroactively but it can’t unkick your face. If all speech is free from legal consequences, that also wouldn’t be great. Saying “I will kill you tomorrow unless you pay me”, that’s a crime committed by language. Ofc if you have a weapon the chance that you mean it increases but regardless, we shouldn’t let people do this. And in the same way you could allege someone is a murderer. And that might not be true. That’s defamation and we shouldn’t let people say that if it’s not true. And there’s a bunch of less impactful speech based crimes. So we can agree some speech should be pursued legally.

But on the other hand, we don’t want censorship. We don’t want a company to censor us when we give our opinions on them, we do wanna comment freely if a politician is a rapist, and we definitely wanna freely talk about the US government being a corrupt piece of shit currently. There’s some things the government should actively shield. In fact, sometimes it’s so important, even if we are restricted by contract about what we can say we should be allowed to talk about it if the bigger purpose is worth it. We call that one “whistleblowing”.

So it’s a threshold in both directions. When should the government protect speech, when should it ignore speech and when should it punish speech? It’s complex.

Side node: free speech in the American sense kind of just means you can say stuff and the government decides afterwards if that’s legal or worthy of special protection. Which incidentally is basically what most other countries do iirc.

So yeah, “free” is just the framing of it, we deal with speech very similarly in most countries. Of course some are fascist, some just stricter, some more relaxed.

Saying hate speech is free speech to me is one way to frame it. But to me it doesn’t change how we do or how we should look at it legally. Let them speak, and if there’s a law against it, we react. And technically that means anyone can say anything. And also very technically that’s free speech for all speech. And I really do not care about it, because I don’t look at technicalities, I look at statistics or examples, and with that I think we’re doing ok on the average. Of course trump’s cabinet is really stretching that to its breaking point but for now they haven’t gotten there yet.

After installing tailscale with my Headscale server, I just left it as is. Maybe people in the comments can chime in but if you expose only your VPN server or broker (Headscale), you kinda narrowed down your attack vectors and a VPN itself is really solid. From my basic knowledge, it’s the server and client which are the bottleneck at that point, but there’s only so much you can do and if you continuously update both and maybe stay on stable / ltsc branches, you kinda did everything.

I guess there’s something to say about the encryption algorithms used. What I remember from back in the day is everything elliptic curves that’s common is quite good so if you see “ECDSA” / “ECDH” you should be fine. RSA unfortunately is not that great anymore.

I forgot to mention that one because I kinda thought it belongs with radmin and hamachi, but it’s my choice as well currently.

I am using it with my own Headscale though, so add a domain to that as well.

And I finally need to switch my vaultwarden to work over tailscale & LAN finally, it’s a huge security risk to expose that one.

I added a reference to your comment

yeah I forgot that one. I had to rush the comment a bit.