toebert

Could/would something like this be insured? Surely not a lot of insurers would be willing to take a billion dollar (let alone 30) asset in a risky region? I really hope it isn't.

I have one in the bedroom, but only because when we moved in together both my partner and I had a TV so there was an extra one.

Has not been turned on for about 2 years now though.

So.. you are familiar with the windows 3rd party programs to use, but not the Linux ones?

That would certainly apply the other way around as well, so is that a barrier to entry to windows too then?

I never understood the argument of "if it's not in the UI you may need to use a command to achieve it and it's scary".

On windows, if it's not in the UI you have to use either a powershell command or update the registry to change it - which are both a very similar experience.

The only difference I actually see in this point is that Linux has a lot more options.

It seems once again parents who don't supervise their kids ruin it for all other families.

Chat control is absolutely going to work with some time, they can just propose it every week. It can afford to fail 100 times, it only needs to pass once - it's not like these people run out of money. Depressing

To be fair all it takes is for enough entities to exchange it between other assets. If you are in Europe, most stores won't sell you anything for your USD unless you exchange it into euros (except some edge cases), so it does feel kinda similar in that sense except cryptos don't really have a "home" country where they're universally accepted (bar some nations whose own currency has so throughly failed they adopted it).

There are some services which allow you to spend crypto by simply doing the exchange for you at the point of purchase into whatever currency the store uses (similar to visa/MasterCard/your bank doing this if you pay by card abroad).

I'll say ultimately though it doesn't change a lot, the idea of crypto is great and there are some where the implementation actually yields something that could be a better money (truly yours, not controlled by a government or a company necessarily, low fees, near instant transactions), but in the end there are just too many of them and they rock the boat too much for the well established financial institutions that they're just doomed IMO.

However, the technology itself I expect will end up being used against us by the ruling class in the coming years (i.e crypto currencies controlled by the government where they can set whatever rules they want on it).

The title reads like they're attacking revanced. Based on the DMCA request, they're claiming (with proof) that revanced is copying their code into the revanced repository without attribution to them, which is illegal under the gpl3 license the projects are under. Their request is to either provide user facing attribution, or remove their code.

I don't use either project and didn't follow the drama, but it seems like a reasonable request.

The thing I've found best to get people talking is asking intentional questions. As in, ask a question that you expect an answer for which might allow you to deepen the conversation on the topic.

For a concrete example, imagine you meet someone taking photos in public and you talk to each other. Asking a question like "so you like photography then?" Is probably gonna get an answer like "yeah sure", unless the other person is keen to provide you more details. Instead, asking a question like "what is your favourite photo you ever took?" Or "what kind of photos do you enjoy taking most?" Helps the other person give a concrete answer with some prompt for detail. From the answer, you can then pick what is the part you find most interesting or most likely to be able to talk about and ask another question with the same mindset.

Hopefully they'll also ask you something in return. If they don't, you can attempt to share something voluntarily that's on topic, but if they don't engage at all it may just mean they don't want to talk to you. In which case, end the interaction on your terms while it's still positive and count it as a win.

That's madness. How would you know you have done something wrong every 8 seconds if you don't hear a weird beep? You could cross some old lines on the road without knowing, or worse - obey the speed limit on the traffic signs instead of what Google thinks it is.

I'll also say 5 but I have my gripes with it. Mainly with the "review from any other engineer" aspect that usually comes with it.. I have met so many engineers whose review seems to just depend on who created the MR, as opposed to what's in it. When an MR with 500+ lines changed gets reviewed in about 10s after requesting it, it's kinda obvious that the system is broken.

The people I've worked with who are good at their job and I'd probably be okay with them merging their changes without reviews would always ask for a review, even when it's not mandatory or enforced. And their MR would already have comments by themselves around bits I might have a question around, and they'd even come with prompts of what they want input on. Whereas the people I wish wouldn't even be allowed to approve anything would usually ask for an approval instead (even the wording seems telling). Sadly, often these 2 groups will have the same job title and HR will dictate that they should have the same permissions and say in things, which is what usually breaks the system IMO.

And lastly, the amount of people who seem to treat reviews as currency/favours and just rubber stamp each others MRs without looking..sigh.

AI is great, LLMs are a waste. This has been the case for years before LLMs.

LLMs which the current hype calls AI are the equivalent of a scammy car salesman. To your example of have AI teach you to code - AI is awful at coding. It produces code that is the average of a junior developer's output. It will look awesome from the outside because it will often mostly work at first, but in reality it's going to be an unmaintainable mess. An experienced engineer could use one and produce a good outcome, in some cases may be faster than without and in others slower - but the experienced engineer requirement is a must. What this means is your AI teacher by itself is a junior engineer, whose output wouldn't be trusted by themselves. That's the level you'll reach and may even learn and pick up terrible habits that'll set you back.

It will do all that and consume a ridiculous amount of resources for it compared to following a YouTube course.

I imagine a similar case is true for most industries, people who work in the industry see the absolute garbage coming out of it in large quantities and have to listen to people from the outside who don't know what good looks like in that context keep saying "oh you are now redundant cuz look how good ai is".

Meanwhile, it is trained on data stolen from the people who are now losing their jobs because the idiotic decision makers are on the side of believing how good the output looks like. AND there is more, it's doing it wasting a massive amount of resources, which drives up the prices for everyone (think all electrical devices needing computers, electricity prices). But what what money are they using for it? Oh yes! The money generated out of thin air by the corporations generating this massive AI bubble, which is most likely going to end with a crash that will decimate the market (and therefore the investments and pensions of people). And if the past is any indication, the government will prop the companies up with tax money - so people will pay for it twice.