ricecake, ricecake@sh.itjust.works

There’s a simpler explanation: people who aren’t shitbags are made unhappy by being beaten down by shitbags, and the shitbags becoming more openly shitty.

You don’t need to bring a geopolitical philosophy into it.

The failing power of the empire and the rising resistance of the global south instills them with a sense of nihilism, because we are supposed to be enlightened and civilized (though we can no longer be said to be, with the rise of overt fascism in the west), while our enemies are regressive, authoritarian barbarians - two equal evils fighting each other, with no hope for anything better

No one is being instilled with a sense of nihilism because of a loss of American influence in the global south, and no one really gives a shit about our enemies and their moral character. People care about stuff like “healthcare”, “poverty”, “civil rights”, “not burning the world”.

This image seems to explain it.

Proton is the windows compatibility layer. Lepton is the android compatibility layer. FEX translates x86 (most desktop computers) applications to run on ARM (most mobile devices).

So do you think 30 year olds should be considered children, legally? Some intermediate thing where they get some rights but not all?

Adulthood, as a human concept as opposed to a strict biological classification, is a medley of biological, legal and social definitions. Do you exist in society independently, or under the explicit social umbrella of your guardian? Do we find you legally capable of bearing guilt? Are you physically mature?
Can you answer those questions with an fMRI? We can estimate age with one, but that just gets back to where we are now. We can measure brain connectivity, which is associated with the frontal cortex properties we associate with responsibility. The inflection point we see is around 15, and the growth rate after that is largely subsumed by the margin of error between individuals. We can also see that the brain doesn’t really stop developing those connections.

None of that answers the primary questions of what constitutes adulthood for humans.
Given that the comment thread started with assertions about how 29 year olds act and behave in society and what’s to be expected of them responsibility wise, it’s clearly a discussion about the social aspects of adulthood, not the biological measurement of brain maturity.

They’re still not talking what you’re talking about. They listed a set of specific activities and behaviors they believe 29 year olds engage in to say they’re not adults.

They eat children’s food, have no money saved, no proper furniture, no hardships, and they ask their parents for advice. (Having parents you respect the opinion of and asking for advice is evidently childish).

That’s an extremely patronizing view on 29 year olds.

You’re talking brain development studies. That has nothing to do with adulthood.

Just for more clarity: they workshoped for ideas on how to improve clarity and accessibility from some editors at an event. They did some small experiments, and they then developed a plan to trial some of them and presented the plan to a wider audience for feedback. After they got feedback they decided not to.

It’s not quite the editors pushing back on Wikipedia. Or rather, it’s not the “rebellion” people want to make it out to be.

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Readers/2024_Reader_and_Donor_Experiences/Content_Discovery/Wikimania_2024,_%22Written_by_AI%22_How_do_editors_and_machines_collaborate_to_create_content

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Reading/Web/Content_Discovery_Experiments/Simple_Article_Summaries

It rubs me the wrong way when the process going how it should go gets cast as controversial and dramatic. Asking the community if you should do something and listening to them is how it’s supposed to go. It’s not resistance, it’s all of them being on the same team and talking.

Eh, that’s not quite original research. There are plenty of other examples of images and sound files created for Wikipedia. A representative example isn’t research, it’s just indicating what something is.

The Wikipedia article on AI slop and generative AI has a few instances of content that’s representative to illustrate a sourced statement, as opposed to being evidence or something.

It’s similar to the various charts and animations.

Yes, but…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ADatabase_download

That’s because viewing the page uses server resources, as done API access. If you want the data you can download the database directly.

I mean, it isn’t history repeating itself exactly but it certainly has an echo.
I think openai is actually a great example for my point. They’re getting investment money from these companies, which is often spent at these companies, and part of the reason for investment is to influence direction.

The dotcom bubble also had major companies making investments. It’s that part of the bubble bursting is those large companies not withdrawing support, but stopping the continual increase in support. Microsoft, Apple and Cisco had massive losses during the bubble, despite being some of the biggest companies.

For bubbles in general, it’s worth remembering that a crash is a time of unprecedented change. Before 2008 the thought of Lehman bothers suddenly going bankrupt was implausible. Same for Washington mutual. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally publicly traded companies until the government just took them to stabilize the housing market. (Being a government founded company makes it a little weird, but they weren’t a part of the government)

So while I get what you’re saying, it’s a good idea to be wary of feeling that any company is … Too big to fail. :)

We are currently in a period of rampant, speculative over investment in a new technology. People are investing because they don’t know who’s going to be the money maker, and they feel confident at least one will turn enough profit to cover the losses of the others. Companies are then being started on the basis of that investment.
Another part of the bubble behavior is the self fueling nature. AI buys ram and GPU, ram and GPU makers invest in AI. In the 90s, websites needed networking gear, and networking gear manufacturers started investing in websites. This similarity is not lost on those who were there before.

Investors also want control of companies so that when one starts to pull ahead they can push the others in different directions to keep competition from hindering it, increasing their odds of profit.

The bubble starts to properly pop when someone’s spreadsheet indicates that they’ve hit the amount they can invest while maintaining the desired probability of profit. Then the investments slow, so that cycle slows, and some companies can’t make payments on delivered product, others can’t deliver on paid for merchandise, confidence wavers and a lot of companies go under in rapid succession.

It’s unlikely the technology goes away entirely, but it’s just as likely we’ll see this level of enthusiasm in a decade as we were to all be surfing the information superhighways on our cyberdecks in the 90s. The Internet didn’t die, but the explosive hype did.

Yes. Because every person who deals with the software has the same opinion about functionality.
Dirty food is objective. Variety isn’t. “Menu is confusing” is subjective, hence some people don’t feel motivated to change what they don’t see as broken.

I honestly can’t fathom arguing this hard to defend flagrant entitlement. You keep glossing over how your demands of fair treatment and community are directed towards someone offering to share with you without any request for reciprocity.
Usually the maintainers are people who got involved because they actually have ability and were able to change something they wanted to be different. Their opinions matter more because they actually bring something to the community.
You’re not entitled to someone’s nights and weekends just because they shared with you. Trying to phrase it as elementary school manners doesn’t make it magically true that now they owe you.

“You invited me to dinner. If you didn’t want my critique of your cooking and home decor you should have never invited me”. Same entitled energy.

That’s not quite right because we’re all getting the exact same thing. I’m giving you a free steak and you’re complaining about the cut of meat. Everyone is getting the same cut, and I bought the steak that I’m giving away so I get to pick what I buy. If you don’t like it you’re more than welcome to bring your own steak and I’ll get it on the grill, or pay me to get you what you want, or hope that I remember to grab one for you the next time. You’re not entitled to a free steak though.

Even backing up and looking at your interpretation as you presented it: you’re complaining that your free steak got ruined and asking for a new one. You might not always get a new gift just because the one given to you went wrong.
Sorry you didn’t get a free steak. Do you want me to take one from someone else?

You don’t want a community, you just want an adoring fanbase for your passion project!

Here’s the thing though: so what if I do? If “I” get what I want, then you get something you like for free. At worst, you get nothing for the grand total of no cost.
You might be forced to go pay for some commercial software, where it’ll cost more and you’ll probably also not get your feature on demand.

So you expect people to work for free on what you think is important, rather than on what they think is important?

A different analogy: I invite you over to a BBQ that I’m throwing. You show up and say you don’t want to eat what I’m preparing. You don’t want to bring anything or contribute because you can’t cook, and I invited you, so it’s rude to ask you to contribute and now I owe you food that you want that I’m not interested in making.

You don’t want a “community”, you want to be provided with high quality low cost software.
Even in your sandbox example: if I’m building a sand castle you don’t get to demand I build it the way you want just because I said you could play too. I don’t want to build that into the castle. If you want to add that bit, you can do it. I’m sharing by letting you play in my sandbox and that doesn’t entitle you to dictate how I play in the sandbox. We can play together, but that doesn’t mean I have to do what you want.

Remember that what you’re doing under the auspices of “community” is justifying telling other people how they should give you free stuff that takes a lot of work that they don’t want to do unpaid in their free time.

What countries have the word “America” in them? How many countries in the Americas are “united States”?
What do you call a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

For the record, The United States of America is the only country with the word America in it’s name. Our immediate neighbor, The United Mexican States, is another country you could, but no one would, plausibly call the United States.

The British isles contains two countries, Ireland and the UK. One of these is the home of the British, and the other would be much happier if you didn’t call them that.

Insisting that you not refer to the people of a country by the most unique name in the countries name, because the geographic region has that word in common is … Odd.

The key part there is that they’re not paid. So working on a passion project is all that matters.

As an aside though, those core system rewrites are often undertaken by businesses rather than the individuals. A lot of businesses view Linux as a tool rather than a consumer OS, so the core systems are the only part that matters.

And you didn’t even read past the first sentence I see.

Saying they’re the same because they both use a neural network is roughly equivalent to saying things are they same because they’re both manipulating kinetic energy.

It can totally be fine for your needs, and secure while it does so, and not be two factors.

It’s a question of what’s required for access. In this case, they would need your password and to have had some manner of device access at some point to steal the value used by 1password to verify you at one point had the secret key. Someone with a keylogger from a random untargeted malware infection could plausibly get sufficient information. It’s really good 1 factor.

To be two factor there would need to be a requirement for two factors to be demonstrated at auth time. For example, if 1password encrypted the passkeys in such a way that the passkey could not ever leave the device, like via certain types of hardware backed key storage, then unlocking the vault is proof of something you know, and the usage of the signature is proof you have the chip.
The trickery comes about in the techniques available to move the passkey between encrypted hardware devices without it ever being exposed or loosing the “device you control” assurances.

For the record, I use 1password. Just not for passkeys on desktop. I prefer the Bluetooth connection to my phone, since phones currently do a much better job providing uniform targets for what’s needed to provide the proper two factor for something like passkeys.

… How if flying a spaceship different from driving a car? They’re both controlled applications of kinetic energy to move people or objects.

At the end of the day, it’s all a pile of transistors and the only thing that is of import is the intent behind usage.

In one case it’s saying you can use a neural net to take something rendered at resolution A/4 and make it visually indistinguishable from the same render at resolution A.
The other is rendering something and radically changing the artistic or visual style.

Upsampling can be replicated within some margin by lowering framerate and letting the GPU work longer on each frame. It strives to restore detail left out from working quicker by guessing.
You cannot turn this feature off and get similar results by lowering the frame rate. It aims to add detail that was never present by guessing.

Upsampling methods have been produced that don’t use neural networks. The differences in behavior are in the realm of efficiency, and in many cases you would be hard pressed to tell which is which. The neural network is an implementation detail.
In the other case, the changes are more broad than can be captured by non AI techniques easily. The generative capabilities are central to the feature.

Process matters, but zooming out too far makes everything identical, and the intent matters too. “I want to see your art better” as opposed to “I want to make your art better”.

There are secure ways to transfer the key that preserve the properties that make it useful as two factors in one.

Basically, the device will only release the key in an encrypted fashion readable by another device able to make the same guarantees, after the user has used that device to authenticate to the first device using the key being transferred.
A backup works the same way.

You can do that without an extension. There’s a bunch of different protocols that let you, for example, use your phone as the authenticator.
You can log in with your phone on a computer you’ve never used before by scanning a QR code and credentials never leave your device.

My passkeys are tied to my phone, which I use via the browser and OS. I keep them in my password manager running on the phone. My password manager supports the open spec for securely migrating credentials between vendors.

It may be difficult to believe but they want you to use them because they’re legitimately significantly better.

Users are silly. They blame Microsoft for bad passwords. They blame Google for forgotten passwords. They blame Facebook when they click on a phishing link. They blame apple when apple “lets” someone who they gave their password to see their pictures. They blame apple when they don’t let the user in just because they forgot their password and every recovery mechanism.

Everyone involved has a significant issue with passwords because they cost them user satisfaction, credibility, or money directly. The reason cross vendor transfer has been slow is because everyone wants to be the leader, since if everyone follows your lead you get to make it work better with your stuff.