I think most people are not spending enough time reading about propaganda and how it's used in 2020. Its very effective and people don't know they have been exposed to it.
We who live in the western world frequently believe propaganda is done by Russia and China but not by our own leaders.
Both are true, but I firmly believe western propaganda is less problematic because at least dissenting media is allowed. It's still bad, but they're not equivalent. Russian and Chinese propaganda and censorship are like being locked in a room, whereas western propaganda is just putting billboards and ads everywhere, but you're able to close the blinds and turn off the TV.
It's much more than ads and billboards. That's not propaganda at all. I would call that advertisements.
What I mean with propaganda is government agencies putting false information to the public and acting like it's true, for the purpose of swaying an opinion in the direction they choose.
Sure, but they're also not taking down correct information. Russia and China do both, western countries preserve freedom of the press, so governments have less sway (though they often get big media outlets to ignore certain topics in exchange for continued press access).
Western propaganda is more nuanced and thus harder to detect, because it has to be. But good information still exists if you look, and usually makes its way to the mainstream eventually. It's subliminal, and most people don't change the channel or close the blinds, but at least they have the option.
Depends on the model. Dolphin-mistral is like 4GB in size and runs on any somewhat modern cpu with reasonable performance. Larger models ofc should be run with higher end gpus at least, but even in hybrid mode (gpu+cpu) models like dolphin-mixtral (26GB) run just fine. For reference, I have a 5800x and a 6900xt, ollama installed in a distrobox container.
I think it's more complex than that. There's a reason he went to Russia, and it's not because Russia is a haven for political dissidents. He's a thorn in the US' side, and he's currently benefiting Russia by doing that, so he gets to stay. He probably also sold some intel to Russia as well.
I do think he's a hero, but I don't like that he's currently in Russia. I think the President should pardon him for whistleblowing and bring him home, but also never give him security clearance (or allow him to work with those that have it). I'm grateful for him outing constitutional violations by the NSA, but I'm also worried about his loyalties.
Here's the content in case anyone is blocking/avoiding X:
OpenAI has appointed Paul M. Nakasone, retired US Army general and former NSA head, to its board of directors.
Nakasone, who led the NSA from 2018 to 2023, will join OpenAI's Safety and Security Committee.
He will help improve AI’s role in cybersecurity by detecting and responding to threats quickly.
His appointment follows concerns over safety culture at OpenAI.
Source: The Verge
They've gone full mask-off: 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 trust @OpenAI
or its products (ChatGPT etc). There is only one reason for appointing an @NSAGov
Director to your board. This is a willful, calculated betrayal of the rights of every person on Earth. You have been warned.
Assange fled to a consulate in London. After years of annoying everyone in that small building he thought it would be smart to unveil sensitive information on the government of that consulate. So, they kicked him out by letting the British police in, now he's getting prison time because fuck freedom of press apparently. Snowden fled to Russia. He would have never seen the light of day if they would have cought him. Probably Guantanamo Bay torture for the rest of his life. So their situations are different, I don't know why that would make a difference to the trust in them.
Both have a strong moral compass, otherwise they wouldn't have done what they did.
I'd rather trust and believe whistleblowers with a very strong moral compass, acting in the interest of the general public, then big tech companies hoarding in our data, breaking copyright and privacy, all for those tasty billions. Those companies only have a moral code towards their own bank account.
Why do people keep saying that Snowden fled to Russia? Afaik he was on his way somewhere and had landed in Russia to get on a connecting flight when his passport was revoked, so he couldn't leave whichever country he was in, which happened to be Russia.
He said that, and other cases, confirmed suspicions that Assange was still linked to Wikileaks. The president also accused Assange of having installed forbidden "electronic and distortion equipment" and of accessing the embassy's security files.
There was also the suspicion that Wikileaks was linked to an anonymous website that said the president's brother had created an offshore company, and leaked material included private pictures of President Moreno and his family. Mr Moreno denies any wrongdoing.
His dramatic expulsion from the embassy follows a year of ratcheting tension between Assange and his Ecuadorian hosts, culminating in WikiLeaks publicizing a leak of hundreds of thousands of hacked emails mysteriously stolen from the inboxes of Ecuador’s president and first lady.
I don't really see the big problem here? Like sure, it's silly that it's cheaper to make wireless headphones than wired ones (I assume - the manufacturers are clearly not too bothered by trademarks and stuff if they put the Lightning logo on it so they wouldn't avoid wired solution just due to licensing fees), but what business does Apple have in cracking down on this? Other than the obvious issues with trademarks, but those would be present even if it were true wired earphones. It's just a knockoff manufacturer.
Cheapest possible wired earphones won't sound much better than the cheapest possible wireless ones, so sound quality probably isn't a factor. And on the plus side, you don't have multiple batteries to worry about, or you could do something funny, like plugging the earphones into a powerbank in your pocket and have a freak "hybrid" earphones with multi-day battery (they're not wireless, but also not tethered to your phone). On the other side, you do waste some power on the wireless link, which is not good for the environment in the long run (the batteries involved will see marginally more wear)
Honestly the biggest issue in my mind is forcing people to turn on Bluetooth, but I don't think this will change anyone's habits - people who don't know what Bluetooth is will definitely just leave it on anyway (it's the default state), and people technical enough to want to turn it off will recognize that there's something fishy about these earphones.
Cheap Bluetooth might have connection hitches and, to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn't work with airplane mode although I think most airplanes these days aren't actually affected or we'd have planes dropping out if the sky daily.
Also, does Bluetooth get saturated the way WiFi does? That, I don't know, but an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance.
Apple sort of shot themselves in the foot here with removing the headphone jack if they had any interest in this issue.
Fair enough, but I've only ever seen this happen with cheap wireless cards / chipsets that do both Bluetooth and WiFi and don't properly avoid interference between these two (for example, I can get perfectly functioning Bluetooth audio out of my laptop with shitty Realtek wireless card if I completely disable WiFi (not just disconnect)). I think this is less of an issue for dedicated Bluetooth devices.
Bluetooth doesn't work with airplane mode although I think most airplanes these days aren't actually affected or we'd have planes dropping out if the sky daily.
Yeah, that's true. As for the second part, AFAIK there was never an issue with 2.4 GHz radios (which is the frequency band Bluetooth uses) interfering with planes, it was more of a liability / laws thing - the plane manufacturer never explicitly said that these radios are safe (so the airline just banned them to be safe) and/or laws didn't allow non-certified radios to operate on planes.
Also, does Bluetooth get saturated the way WiFi does?
Eventually yes, but it's much more resilient than WiFi - 2.4 GHz WiFi only has three non-overlapping channels to work with (and there's a whole thing with the in-between channels being even worse for everyone involved than everyone just using the same correct three channels that I won't get into), while Bluetooth slices the same spectrum into 79 fully usable channels. It also uses much lower transmission power, so signal travels a shorter distance. And unlike WiFi, it can dynamically migrate from channel to channel (in fact, it does this even without any interference). 100 people actually seeing each other's devices might be a problem, but I don't think that's a realistic scenario - Bluetooth will use the lowest transmit power at which it can get a reliable link, so if everyone's devices are only transmitting over a meter or so, there shouldn't be any noticeable interference on the other side of the plane.
to my knowledge, Bluetooth doesn't work with airplane mode
The radio regulations were amended about 10 years ago to allow both Bluetooth and Wifi frequencies to be used on airplanes in flight. And so cell phone manufacturers have shifted what airplane mode actually means, even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on. And regardless of defaults, both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently of airplane mode on most phones now.
an airplane full of 100 people all on Bluetooth might create some noise issues that would hurt the performance
I don't think so. Bluetooth is such a low bandwidth use that it can handle many simultaneous users. It's supposed to be a low power transmission method, in which it bursts a signal only a tiny percentage of the time, so the odds of a collision for any given signal are low, plus the protocol is designed to be robust where it handles a decent amount of interference before encountering degraded performance.
even to the point of some phones not even turning off Wi-Fi when airplane mode is turned on
I didn't know that part (the rest yes). So much for using airplane mode to conserve battery. I suppose it's the tower handshake that is most energy hungry in my experience.
both wireless protocols can be activated and deactivated independently
100% although my comment was in the context of people who don't really understand Bluetooth at all.
So much for using airplane mode to conserve battery.
Your understanding is slightly off.
Airplane mode Does In Fact Turn off your CELLULAR Radio This radio is what powers your (2/3/4/5)G and LTE (This is 4G btw) connection to the cell towers.
Most international radio communications laws can prohibit the use of Cellular Radio in flight; however they often don't prohibit the use of shorter range radio technologies such as WIFI or Bluetooth.
It's all about 'loudness'. Think about it. Your phone must 'scream louder' at a farther away cell tower than it would need to communicate with a nearby WiFi router or a Bluetooth headset.
Also, phones don't use a lot of power to purely listen for Wifi beacons. They're not transmitting until they actually try to join, so leaving wifi on doesn't cost significant power unless you just happen to be near a remembered network.
Not sure why you're saying that. I wasn't disagreeing with any of your points, but adding to them another angle that answered the parent comment's concerns about whether leaving wifi on for airplane mode drains battery. You addressed the cellular radio side, and I was adding a separate point about the WiFi radio that complements what you were saying.
Or next thing ya know, it turns out the brick has bluetooth too and is required to connect to the phone in order to charge it during normal use, so OP'd have to pair it with the phone as well in order to power the headphones, further reinforcing the locals.
As horrified as I was to read this, it is a little exciting to think that I live in a world where Bluetooth radios are so inexpensive that building it that way is cheaper
LOL. Not in this case. Cheap headphones do not pay Apple a dime. And Apple can’t go after every little headphone manufacturer they have real things to deal with like entire knock off Apple Stores that push millions of dollars a month.
In this case, the answer is less insidious. It’s the batteries. These headphones have BT but no batteries, hence why they are wired (need the power).
Two reasons. One, it’s actually expensive to wire up lightning to audio. Because the connection is digital, not analogue like the headphone jack. Two Apple can detect data thru software and even disable it, leaving the headphones useless. Why would they? Because you didn’t apply for their mifi program and pay them. These headphones don’t have data, they just plug directly into power.
To add to it, you probably also have to deal with parts sourcing. You can probably scavenge Bluetooth radios from several generations worth of equipment or get cheap from China. In contrast, a Lightning cable that can turn data to sound is likely really hard to come by.
Bluetooth's digital too, my guy. You need a digital-analog converter either way. It's just that when you use the Lightning port for audio you don't also need a Bluetooth radio. Besides, USB DAC chips are like a dollar.
Also you just proved my point that they only did this to avoid licensing fees.
They are cheaper than batteries. The cost of shipping and adding batteries to the production line. They are volatile and require strict regulation so most cheap manufacturers just don’t want the hassle. That’s why it needs power. It has BT, but no battery.
They are buying cheap earbuds and rant about cheap manufacturing. Doesn't make sense. I think it's a genius solution to avoid ridiculous licensing costs. Also why does it matter if the audio goes through the cable or wireless? In this price range it all sounds like shit.
Yea, this is not cheap companies doing cheap things. This is companies getting annoyed by stupid licencing and restrictions, getting around the problem.
Even if it's a nice solution the licensing issue, they are still deceiving their users. I don't think I have seen anything like them but they should be clear that they are bluetooth.
I don't understand why you don't blame Apple first of all for their methods of locking up open standards and/or modifying them just enough that non-apple products won't work.
I don't support Chinese companies for doing shitty products, but fuck Apple for everything they do to lock you in their "ecosystem."
Yeah, I feel like oop reached the wrong conclusion after this. Apple treats its consumers as if they were mindless children and they (for some reason) love it. Just look at the whole "green texts" issue, for example.
Some manufacturers found a smart workaround but the apple brainrot is stronger, I guess.
I wouldn't call this a "smart workaround". I mean, I can hardly blame the opportunistic fucks for doing it this way, and certainly the original sin in Apple's licensing/certification bullshit, but it's just an amazingly stupid way of doing this all around, brought about by both Apple's and the earbud manufacturers' greed.
x.com
Active