That's a good point. You'd have to know your intended user. Somebody who only uses flatpak probably doesn't need to worry about anything, but if they want to start layering, they'd run into problems on a major version change.
Telorand
joined 2 years ago
I find that unlikely when considering the current trajectory of AI.
Honestly, if someone wants the ease of Windows but isn't tech savvy enough to figure out "typical" Linux, I'd just point them to Aurora. Fedora atomic, easy system upgrades, easy rollbacks, nearly no downtime due to backup images.
Android integration sounds interesting though.
It's probably just Waydroid, but rebranded.
Everybody starts somewhere. Few come out the gate being Depeche Mode. That doesn't mean it's not worth the struggle to get better.
If you want to fight for something, please learn what you stand behind.
And how do you know I haven't? Do you have insight into my mind?
Here's my stance: Fuck Google. When have they ever done anything for the benefit of humanity? If this turns out to do exactly what it says on the tin, I'll be happy to eat my words, but pardon me if I don't believe that Google is suddenly interested in clean energy.
Human digital interfaces aren't a secret, but other things like remote-viewing, etc. have been known about for a long time, and they were failures. There's even a whole movie about it called Men Who Stare At Goats. Pointing to a few examples of actual conspiracies or weird projects doesn't mean every claim has validity. It just means the government is generally untrustworthy, but that also means you need to take each claim individually, in practice. You can't just generalize and say that "government untrustworthy, therefore believe the opposite of anything they say." That's being reactive, not skeptical.
That's not to say that there's not scary tech out there (it's been demonstrated that they can not only see but hear conversations through walls by interpolating Wi-Fi signals), but it's all very much within the realm of science, not the paranormal.
Oof, that's rough.
It's not just the money. It's the knowledge and expertise needed to use the algorithms, at all...Not everyone has the time, energy, and attention to learn that stuff.
I agree. That does not mean that LLMs are leveling the playing field with people who can't/won't get an education regarding computer science (and let's not forget that most algorithms don't just appear; they're crafted over time). LLMs are easy, but they are not better or even remotely equivalent. It's like saying, "Finally, the masses can tell a robot to build them a table," and saying that the expertise of those "elite" woodworkers is no longer needed.
...damn if I am tired of having to rely on "Zillow and a prayer" if I want to get a house or apartment.
And this isn't a problem LLMs can solve. I feel for you, I do. We're all feeling this shit, but this is a capitalism problem. Until the ultracapitalists who are making these LLMs (OpenAI, Google, Meta, xAI, Anthropic, Palantir, etc.) are no longer the drivers of machine learning, and until the ultracapitalist companies stop using AI or algorithms to decide who gets what prices/loans/rental rates/healthcare/etc., we will not see any kind of level playing field you or the author are wishing for.
You're looking at AI, ascribing it features and achievements it doesn't deserve, then wishing against all the evidence that it's solving capitalism. It's very much not, and if anything, it's only exacerbating the problems caused by it.
I applaud your optimism—I was optimistic about it once, too—but it has shown, time and again, that it won't lead to a society not governed by the endless chasing of profits at the expense of everyone else; it won't lead to a society where the billionaires and the rest of us compete on equal footing. What we regular folk have gotten from them will not be their undoing.
If you want a better society where you don't have to claw the most meager of scraps from the hand of the wealthy, it won't be found here.
25
Texas Legislator Wants To Fine Museums $500k Per Day For Displaying ‘Obscene’ Content
(www.techdirt.com)
view more: next ›
Exactly. It would have been better for them to put their money towards not generating CO2 in the first place. Batteries are nothing special, and they're signing off on this project so they can appear green, because it uses CO2.