I did nothing and I’m all out of ideas!
I assumed it was a shitpost, instead it is a real tweet. What a time to be alive.
Jokes aside the only real reason I can fathom for the collectibles company to call their mother is because they had used it as the contact number in the registry. I would be surprised if this was some kind of intimidation tactic instead of just miscommunication - in the sense they probably just wanted to legally intimidate the itch’s owner not their immediate family. They are not 2K /s.
Nice data, but I think we should take a broader view too:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2023&locations=RU-IN&start=2019
I semi randomly picked India because it is part of BRICS and had a similar economic trajectory: It is quite interesting playing with all those nobs and labels.
In this context I think PPP - which you showed - is a good indicator of the internal quality of living, but as far as I understand it, it has an hard time showing the difference in quality and standards of the consumer products between countries, so a dip in nominal GDP is an interesting context with the PPP adjusted rise. Less expensive things, because they are less regulated?
Aside from that Russia has almost completely pivoted to a war economy which, as far as I know, tends to give a big initial boost but it stresses and makes the real (for lack of a better term) economy crash in the long run.
What do you think about this? It is an interesting topic.
I was reading @[email protected] and @[email protected] exchange and I found it an interesting - albeit moot - topic. So I went and spent the last hour to download some data and filter it: I will post some numbers with no commentary. I will add my opinions after them in a spoiler.
imf.org GDP, current prices, Billion of U.S. dollars
2023 GDP Nominal
NATO 52392,344
BRICS 27330,345
2024 GDP Nominal (estimates)
NATO 55148,819
BRICS 28442,630
imf.org GDP, current prices, Purchasing power parity; billions of international dollars
2023 GDP PPP
NATO 63996,245
BRICS 66010,889
2024 GDP PPP (estimates)
NATO 66812,821
BRICS 70911,69
imf.org GDP based on PPP, share of world
2023 GDP PPPSH
NATO 34,731
BRICS 35,824
2024 GDP PPPSH (estimates)
NATO 34,339
BRICS 36,446
Brazil, People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russian Federation, South Africa, United Arab Emirates
Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Republic of Türkiye, United Kingdom, United States
This comparison makes no sense for a multitude of reasons, starting from the difference in effective cohesion, motivation and raison d’être of the two organizations.
Even if there were multiple tries, especially by Russia, to push for more integration in the economic and military structure, you can see how it is still incredibly fractured: if you are interested you can check on the current state of the SWIFT alternatives to see how much each of the big players still pull to be the leader.
A more apt loose organization to compare BRICS to would probably be the G7, but even there it really is not the same, considering the member list and how integrated they are in other ways. Still, a better one.
Aside from that the PPP is often touted as a great way to compare completely different economies, and it has its uses to understand how people live in different countries. Its use in a comparison like this one has, IMHO, no space.
If someone comes to me with a one Billion random-currency investment, even if for them it only buys a loaf of bread but for me it means a new factory and 100 full-time employees, if they withdraw it it is a disaster.
Then again GDP is not even the parameter we should be looking into, considering the article: We should check the international trade between China and the European Union, and make consideration about that.
Last, but not least, I used the IMF numbers because they are easy to get in a nice format. They are not the best, but they are not the worst too. More info here, have fun.
This is getting weird.
If I would generate an image with an AI and then take a photo of it, I could copyright the photo, even if the underlying art is not copyrightable, just like the leaves?
So, in an hypothetical way, I could hold a copyright on the photo of the image, but not on the image itself.
So if someone would find the model, seed, inference engine and prompt they could theoretically redo the image and use it, but until then they would be unable to use my photo for it?
So I would have a copyright to it through obscurity, trying to make it unfeasible to replicate?
This does sound bananas, which - to be fair - is pretty in line with my general impression of copyright laws.
I didn’t know about this project, so I took a quick look around.
I didn’t see any mention of Telemetry or Metrics, but I assume they can use this:
After starting Tails and connecting to Tor, Tails Upgrader automatically checks if upgrades are available and then proposes you to upgrade your USB stick. The upgrades are checked for and downloaded through Tor.
https://tails.net/doc/upgrade/index.en.html#automatic
Still, I just gave this a few minutes, so there could be more.
I’m not sure this is going to directly affect that, because their deal talks mainly about financing for the Control game, and the other news is about movie adaptations, so probably it is going to be another team, lead by the newly re-hired Hector Sanchez, working on that…
But who knows, this kind of things are always hard to follow from the outside
It’s an error with a dependency written in Rust, the workaround is to use an older toolchain (1.72), it is fixed in the newer code of tokenizers, but probably it is not updated in AUTOMATIC1111 yet: you should check their bug tracker
To have more info you can read this issue: Link
Considering you are not using the Flatpak anymore it is, indeed, strange. The only reasons I can think of are: your network manager is using the wrong network interface to route your traffic ( if you go on an ip checking site like for example ipinfo do you see yours or the VPN’s IP?) or that you have WebRTC enabled and the broadcaster is getting your real ip through that.
For the first case it can get pretty complicated, but it is probably an error during the installation of the VPN app or you set up multiple network managers and it gets confused on which one to configure. You should also enable the Advanced Kill Switch in the configuration.
For the second case you could try adding something like the Disable WebRTC add-on for firefox and check if it works. Remember to enable it for Private Windows too.
The last thing I can think of is that you allowed the broadcaster to get your real geolocation (in firefox it should be a small icon on the left of the address bar), or you are leaking some kind of information somewhere: there are a bunch of site that check for ip leak, but I don’t know if that goes too deep for you.
If you want to check anyway the first two results from DDG are browserleaks and ipleak. Mullvad offered one too but it is currently down.
EDIT: If you enable the Advanced Kill Switch, and the app is working correctly, internet will not work while you are not connected to a VPN server or until you disable the switch again, so pay attention to that.
Probably when you installed the second linux you overwrote the boot loader instead of adding a new UEFI entry point.
But I’ve never had a Mac, so take this with a pinch of salt, and honestly considering things can change based on what, in which order, and how you installed things… it could be something else.
Unfortunately, in general, people tend to just read, vote, and then forget about it without checking back: that’s why I always try to add some source or ways to verify what I post.
And - in this specific case - probably some people just like LTT, I assume.
Linus is an investor in the framework company: Source on the framework forums that links to the video on youtube
Why not directly link to the video? Because I don’t want to! :P
Because, as pointed in the page, Servo is being developed as a(n embeddable) Rendering Engine, not as a full blown end user Browser.
Its alternatives are not Chrome, Safari or Firefox, but Webkit, Blink and Gecko
There’s an example GUI called Servoshell, but it is more of a testing ground and example on how to embed the engine in an app than a serious alternative to anything currently in the market.
Already this kind of work is difficult and daunting. Adding to it a full GUI would make it completely impossible for the current size and financial backing Servo has.
Big words aside it just means that Servo wants to be only one of the parts that compose a real browser: the one that takes HTML, Javascript, WASM and translates them into the things you see on your monitor. All the user facing functionality are left to the devs of the app that embed it.
I feel there’s some kind of miscommunication going on here.
Probably I’m not understanding what you are putting forward, but to be clear: They are not doing this because they want to. They are doing it because they are forced to do it by the DMA.
It’s true that allegedly they were working on some kind of interoperability layer already. For years now. But no evidence of it being more than lip service to avoid being regulated has ever surfaced - as far as I know.
Which would have been in line with your “Do Nothing”.
as an unwilling Whatsapp user the ability to migrate without having to convince all my social circles to do anything but check a checkbox sounds like a huge step forward.
That’s the point. I feel it will not be a “simple checkbox”, and they will make it the most obnoxious process they can using the Best Dark Patterns the industry has to offer.
Already the general public is not interested in the alternatives or the concept of interoperability - wanting something that Just Works™ - putting in front even the smallest step (and some scary text!) will make the percentage of willing people become even lower.
And that’s not all. As it is portraited in the article by the Threema’s spokeperson it is pretty clear that Meta will just try to make the maintenance of the communication layer as cumbersome as they can - both technically and bureaucratically.
They are explicitly the ones keeping the reins of the standard, the features, the security model, the exchanged data and who, how and when will be approved.
So from one side if they make it hard and scary enough to tank the use rate, they will have the excuse of not being there enough people to give priority to fix it or add features, and from the other side if maintaining the interoperability will be difficult and time consuming enough, the people and businesses from the alternatives or wrappers will not have the incentive to do or keep doing it for the long haul. As we can already see in the article.
Is it better than nothing? Sure, probably. Will it be a slow cooking, easy to break, easy to get excluded from, just bare minimum to comply to the letter but not the spirit of the law? I feel that’s a pretty good bet to make.
Let’s be clear: I will be extremely happy if all the red flags and warning bells that I saw in the article will just end up being figments of my imagination. But yes, I’m very pessimistic - maybe even too much - when I see these kind of corporate speech and keywords.
“One of the core requirements here, and this is really important, is for users for this to be opt-in,” says Brouwer. “I can choose whether or not I want to participate in being open to exchanging messages with third parties. This is important, because it could be a big source of spam and scams.”
Let me translate this for you: "We will make users hop on the most cumbersome, frustrating and inefficient way we can think of to enable interoperability. And making it defaulted to off will mean people using other apps will need to find other channels to ask for it to be enabled on our users’ end, making it worthless.
And don’t forget: we will put a bunch of scary warnings, and only allow to go all in, with no middle ground or granularity!"
Great stuff, thank you. I can’t wait.
“We don’t believe interop chats and WhatsApp chats can evolve at the same pace,” he says, claiming it is “harder to evolve an open network” compared to a closed one.
Ah, so they are going for the Apple’s approach with iMessage and Android sms. Cool, cool.
I hope my corporate-to-common translator is broken, because this does just sound bad.
Any foundation model is trained on a subset of common crawl.
All the data in there is, arguably, copyrighted by one individual or another. There is no equivalent open - or closed - source dataset to it.
Each single post, page, blog, site, has a copyright holder. In the last year big companies have started to change their TOS to make that they are able to use, relicense and generally sell your data hosted in their services as their own for the intent of AI training, so potentially some small parts of common crawl will be licensable in bulk - or directly obtained from the source.
This does still leave out the majority of the data directly or indirectly used today, even if you were willing to pay, because it is unfeasable to search and contract every single rights holder.
On the other side of it there have been work to use less but more heavily curated data, which could potentially generate good small, domain specific, models. But still they will not be like the ones we currently have, and the open source community will not be able to have access to the same amount and quality of data.
It’s an interesting problem that I’m personally really interested to see where it leads.
Probably I’m missing something but I’ve read the parent comment as a way to highlight the hypocrisy behind making extensive use of something while, simultaneously, wanting to bar others from using it
I don’t see an insult in there, given the choice of words and the context, but maybe I’m missing something fundamental?