The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.
The meme only says “if … then …”. It does not imply the reverse relationship of “if not … then not …”.
Oh awesome, thank you so much!
Seconding this. Legitimately better than Google photos in a lot of ways, even if you don’t care about the data ownership aspect. If you’ve ever been annoyed at how Google Photos handles face detection / grouping, you’ll love Immich.
I’d love to know what font was used for the big “Saturday” there!
Now please explain to me how C works.
That’s not what they’re asking. It’s not about how C works, it’s about how specific APIs written in C work, which is hard to figure out on your own for anyone who is not familiar with that specific code. You’ll have to explain that to any developer coming new into the project expected to work with those APIs, no matter their experience with C.
It is an algorithm that searches a dataset and when it can’t find something it’ll provide convincing-looking gibberish instead.
This is very misleading. An LLM doesn’t have access to its training dataset in order to “search” it. Producing convincing looking gibberish is what it always does, that’s its only mode of operation. The key is that the gibberish that comes out of today’s models is so convincing that it actually becomes broadly useful.
That also means that no, not everything an LLM produces has to have been in its training dataset, they can absolutely output things that have never been said before. There’s even research showing that LLMs are capable of creating actual internal models of real world concepts, which suggests a deeper kind of understanding than what the “stochastic parrot” moniker wants you to believe.
LLMs do not make decisions.
What do you mean by “decisions”? LLMs constantly make decisions about which token comes next, that’s all they do really. And in doing so, on a higher, emergent level they can make any kind of decision that you ask them to, the only question is how good those decisions are going be, which in turn entirely depends on the training data, how good the model is, and how good your prompt is.
That kind of window has been around for a long time already. Also, let me introduce you to window awnings
we’re going to ostracize you from society forever
That is very different from simply not wanting him to be a representative for his country and potential role model for aspiring athletes in one of the biggest media events of the world though. Being welcomed back as a member of society is one thing, but there is a point to be made about expecting more of Olympic athletes than your average member of society.
It still protects you from your passwords being compromised in any way except through a compromise of the password manager itself. Yes, it’s worse than keeping them separate, but it’s also still much better than not having 2fa at all.
Right, that’s definitely an important thing, that at least with gog, you can defend yourself against that possibility.
My “best we got” was in regards to the potential to become a lot worse because of shareholder pressure. Given that CD Project is a publicly traded company, GOG is much worse in that regard than Steam.
I fully agree that GOG, as it currently is, could be the better product for you depending on your values, but its defenses against enshittification are objectively much worse than Steam’s*, and that’s all I was talking about.
*That is, until Gabe dies, I guess, who knows what’ll happen then
Nobody is talking about “no potential”. Just “a lot less potential than any other option out there”, and that’s currently the best we got
It depends on where you live. In Germany, forced arbitration in general TOS is invalid and has to be separately negotiated and agreed to. In general, what you can put into your TOS is pretty restricted, anything you put in there that a consumer wouldn’t reasonably expect is not gonna be legally binding.
You’re not wrong, but the way you put it makes it sound a little bit too intentional, I think. It’s not like the camera sees infrared light and makes a deliberate choice to display it as purple. The camera sensor has red, green and blue pixels, and it just so happens that these pixels are receptive to a wider range of the light spectrum than the human eye equivalent, including some infrared. Infrared light apparently triggers the pixels in roughly the same way that purple light does, and the sensor can’t distinguish between infrared light and light that actually appears purple to humans, so that’s why it shows up like that. It’s just an accidental byproduct of how camera sensors work, and the budgetary decision to not include an infrared filter in the lens to prevent it from happening.
The German saying says “Hut”, which is a less broad term than the English “hat”. And it definitely does not include that.
Will if we’re only talking charging, USB-C should be as easy to implement as any of them, basic 5v is gonna work even without most of the pins connected
In that case it becomes a violation again. At least according to the law
Pretty sure most people here are talking about the usage side of things. If we were to go by effort to implement the connector, let’s just go back to serial ports
I mean, this is one of the few cases where you actually can reasonably say that you might not have to give a damn about GDPR. Assuming this is in the US, there’s a high chance that no EU citizen lives in that building, and thus GDPR doesn’t apply.
(Yes, I know this didn’t actually happen)
You might be misremembering / misinterpreting a little there. This behavior is not intentional, it’s just a side effect of how the algorithm currently works. Showing you longer videos doesn’t equate to showing you more ads. On the contrary, if you get loads of short videos you’ll have way more opportunities to see pre-roll ads, but with longer videos, you’re just to just the mid-roll spots in that video. So YouTube doesn’t really have an incentive to make it work like that, it’s just accidental.
Here’s the spiffing Brit video on this, which I think you might have gotten this idea from: https://youtu.be/8iOjeb5DTZI
Edit: to be clear, I fully agree that YouTube will do anything to shove ads down our throats no matter how effective they actually are. I’m just saying that this example you’ve brought is not really that.