MudMan

MudMan , 1 day ago

I've genuinely never felt the need, but I also don't post for clout or proactively, I'm more of a reply guy in that I prefer the version of social media where I talk with people rather than at people and I do not give a crap about followers, upvotes or starting popular threads. Believe it or not that tends to do a lot to minimize the use cases for blocking, in that people rarely take the time to chase me around or specifically target me, even when things get heated.

But hey, if somebody is bothering you block away. I don't have a moral stance on it.

MudMan , 6 days ago

"Under the age of 30", huh?

Alright, nerds, just so we're clear, that was more than 15 years ago. Assuming this is current, which it probably isn't, that "53yo" dad was in his late 30s at the time, could very much have been posting about it when it happened. Given the current average age for having kids, "bumblebeebats" was probably wearing diapers by the time the Internet got to the point of entirely abstracting it to shapes. There is a longer period of time between loss.jpg and now than between the first rickroll and loss.jpg.

If it makes you feel any better, all of this is hurting me just as bad as it's hurting you.

MudMan , 6 days ago

Even better. There's a solid chance Bumble wasn't even born when loss.jpg happened.

What a life.

MudMan , 7 days ago

I wonder, too. Pro-EU centre-right parties and social democrat parties still hold a majority, so on these things I'm not sure we'll see a major shift, but I genuinely haven't checked the voting record to see if the far right parties generally take a different stance on the more pedestrian consumer protection regulations or not. I probably should do that.

MudMan , 10 days ago

Man, the way this channels a mix of "it is the children who are wrong" and sheer impotence is hitting me hard. I mean, it really explains so much about modern activism.

MudMan , 10 days ago

Oh, spare me that rhetroric. Protestors in the 90s and especially the 2000s felt just as disenfranchised. That's how you end up protesting in the first place. And those were the nice ones. The stories my parents could tell you about the 60s and 70s.

It's not like "don't be an idiot" is a struggle only now. I was in protests back in a different millenium where the smart ones were already standing in front of cops and bank windows to stop the idiots from throwing rocks at them and spoiling the whole thing.

The despondent "you just don't get it" online discourse is pretty new, though.

MudMan , 10 days ago

The dictionary definition I was going for is: "The quality or condition of being impotent; lack of strength or power".

MudMan , 10 days ago

And beyond getting charged it's the optics. I am from a place where you're less likely to get shot by police and where serious charges are not likely to come from protesting (at least back then, it has gotten worse). But even then the marching orders were that if cops charge or disrupt the protest that's good optics, if the protestors riot unprompted that's bad optics, which should be pretty straightforward to understand.

MudMan , 10 days ago

Oh. No, I meant the strip, not the activists. The implication is that we're all so dumb that we end up underwater but we're still complaining about how the activists were assholes. For the joke to work, the stunt itself needs to be pointless. If the stunt was indeed to "provoke action against climate change" the strip would make no sense. The premise of the joke requires the action it's defending to be useless.

So yeah, to me this transmits that a) the author thinks the action itself did not work and was not going to work in the first place, and b) the author thinks we're getting angry about it instead of taking action against climate change because we're dumb and we don't get it, so the action was fine, it's our fault.

It's the children who are wrong, but also we're entirely powerless, but it's because everybody is stupid except for us, only the activism is to make everybody else stop being stupid only it can't work becasue of how stupid you all are. Impotence and Skinner-esque arrogance for a tasty mix of surreal kafkaesque self-contradiction.

MudMan , 10 days ago

Did the other thing achieve any of that?

I'll say the jets were effective in that I don't like the jets while I am primed to try to physically stop you from doing the other thing if you try it in front of me. And I already agree with the underlying point already, so imagine how the normies that don't think about this at all feel.

"Ah, a cartoonish self-parody of activists defacing a monument I've spent my entire life feeling a sense of kinship with, I feel compelled to rethink my stance on this dry, complex political issue". That's a bold pitch for a PR stunt.

MudMan , 10 days ago

Oooh, oooh, I got one.

I went to multiple protests after the Iraq war and got my Iraq war-supporting government to immediately plummet in support and lose the next election. It was nice. No harmed irreplaceable monuments that I remember. The marches I attended were entirely peaceful, as well.

MudMan , 10 days ago

This is such a clarifying post.

It's not about being useful, it's about feeling useful. It's about the impotent frustration of feeling you're not having an impact being channeled through a media stunt whether or not it in fact changes anything, or even if it makes things worse.

That is what's going on here, I think. Strategic thinking about this is slow and involves a long road and political concessions and compromises and getting involved hands-on with very out-of-sight things for a long time. This takes a second and it makes it to the news, so it feels like something got done, even if it wasn't the case.

And that's 21st century activism in a nutshell, basically.

MudMan , 9 days ago (edited 9 days ago)

Oh, is it? Man, this is such a Rorschach test of a thread.

Is the point of a protest to be in the news? I guess the clout economy has rotten our brains after all.

I mean, yeah, you can make news by acting like an idiot, in that the people that oppose your cause will thoroughly cover it. It's not hard to be in the news with a protest, as long as you don't care why you're news. Stage a mass murder of puppies to protest against the lack of gun control and I guarantee you'll get a spot in Fox News every day for a year, very much accompanied of a pro-gun lobbyist commenting the footage.

That may be the core of the confusion here. I'm saying that turning climate change activism into the puppy murder cause is not an effective way to curb climate change. I'm saying that feeling powerless doesn't make it any more effective at curbing climate change just because it gets news coverage.

It's not making anybody aware of the issue who already isn't, because everybody is already aware of the issue. It's not explaining anything about the issue to anybody, because all we're talking about here is the stupid stunt. It doesn't convince anybody who was neutral or hostile to the cause because they came off as complete idiots at best, malevolent assholes at worst.

So I guess my answer to your question is that even if the jet thing did nothing it still was more effective than this. Because it's not about being in the news, it's about making effective action more likely to happen.

MudMan , 9 days ago

Nah, when you deface a one-of-a-kind prehistoric monument that not only is of genuine historical relevance and recognizable worldwide but also a key cultural touchstone with deep identitarian components for a whole country you are deep into Cruella territory. In good faith. Genuinely. I'm not even English and I am pissed. You don't even get the usual excuses about bourgeois art these idiots have used for other stunts like these.

This is literally supervillain stuff. It's the stuff they put in Superman movies to show he's gone bad. In the zeitgeist of normal humanity it's shorthand for "these are the bad guys", right alongside suspiciously spotted fur coats and shooting your minions for failing to catch somebody.

How anybody wouldn't get this makes me not only question their ability to socially engineer a planetary revolution of the ways we generate power and consume goods, but the ability to function as an adult and put their pants on in the morning. If I hired a PR consultant to advertise "climate action" and they proposed this I wouldn't just fire them, I'd sue them for trying to sabotage me. It's incredibly stupid. Seriously. Genuinely. As somebody who wants these people to actually succeed.

MudMan , 9 days ago

No.

And you can't make me.

And since a protest is ultimately an attempt to manipulate an entire people into shifting the national consensus over to your opinion, if I'm refusing to stop being dramatic about the optics of what they did then what they did was an abysmal failure.

That's the point people are trying to make here. That ultimately this thing is marketing, and that if everybody is pissed at you after your marketing impact you just did bad marketing.

Alright, you want me to tone it down? Here it is toned down: it's not the puppy coat.

It's Apple's hydraulic press iPad advertising.

You do realize that isn't any better, right?

MudMan , 9 days ago

Oh, so it's even worse. They aren't trying to get any practical effect, it's just pointless vandalism that won't achieve anything. Cool.

Please explain to me how this keeps climate change in the public consciousness. We haven't spoken about anything even vaguely climate change-related in this entire thread. None of the discourse around it is about climate change. It's a distraction, at best. It's the sand the "people and the media" bury their heads in.

I hate the defeatism, too. If it doesn't do anything, then why even bother? Let the people who are... you know, actually working on it do their thing and get out of the way with the cornstarch and the stunts.

I also don't get the necessity to be defensive about it. I get to very much advocate for climate change action (and take action myself, by voting accordingly if nothing else) and still acknowledge this was a dumb thing, which is... honestly pretty obvious. Speaking of bad optics that make you lose the culture wars, denying how dumb this was just makes you seem delusional. After all, if climate activists are so obviously wrong about the obviously wrong thing why would they be right about the other thing? There is literally no upside to this.

MudMan , 14 days ago

Technically all sandwiches are proprietary. Don't eat public sandwiches, we went through a pandemic, we should know better.

MudMan , 14 days ago

Don't eat free to use sandwiches, either. Ew.

The UX is mostly garbage on those anyway.

Man, you must be a riot at parties.

MudMan , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

OK, but why?

Well, for fun and as a cool hobby project, I get that. That is enough to justify it, like any other crazy hobbyist project. Don't let me stop you.

But in the spirit of practicality and speaking hypothetically: Why set it up that way?

For self-hosting why not build a few standalone machines and run off that instead? The reason to do this large scale is optimizing resources so you can assign a smaller pool of hardware to users as they need it, right? For a home set of two or three users you'd probably notice the fluctuations in performance caused by sharing the resources on the gaming VMs and it would cost you the same or more than building a couple reasonable gaming systems and a home server/NAS for the rest. Way less, I bet, if you're smart about upgrades and hand-me-downs.

MudMan , 16 days ago

Yeah, but if you're this deep into the self hosting rabbit hole what circumstances lead to having an extra GPU laying around without an extra everything else, even if it's relartively underpowered? You'll probably be able to upgrade it later by recycling whatever is in your nice PC next time you upgrade something.

At this point most of my household is running some frankenstein of phased out parts just to justify my main build. It's a bit of a problem, actually.

MudMan , 16 days ago

OK, yeah, that makes sense. And it IS pretty unique, to have a multi-GPU system available at home but just idling when not at work. I think I'd still try to build a standalone second machine for that second user, though. You can then focus on making the big boy accessible from wherever you want to use it for gaming, which seems like a much more manageable, much less finicky challenge. That second computer would probably end up being relatively inexpensive to match the average use case for half of the big server thing. Definitely much less of a hassle. I've even had a gaming laptop serve that kind of purpose just because I needed a portable workstation with a GPU anyway, so it could double as a desktop replacement for gaming with someone else at home, but of course that depends on your needs.

And in that scenario you could also just run all that LLM/SD stuff in the background and make it accessible across your network, I think that's pretty trivial whether it's inside a VM or running directly on the same environment as everything else as a background process. Trivial compared to a fully virtualized gaming computer sharing a pool of GPUs, anyway.

Feel free to tell us where you land, it certainly seems like a fun, quirky setup etiher way.

MudMan , 16 days ago

I guess that depends on the use case and how frequently both machines are running simultaneously. Like I said, that reasoning makes a lot of sense if you have a bunch of users coming and going, but the OP is saying it's two instances at most, so... I don't know if the math makes virtualization more efficient. It'd pobably be more efficient by the dollar, if the server is constantly rendering something in the background and you're only sapping whatever performance you need to run games when you're playing.

But the physical space thing is debatable, I think. This sounds like a chonker of a setup either way, and nothing is keeping you from stacking or rack-mounting two PCs, either. Plus if that's the concern you can go with very space-efficient alternatives, including gaming laptops. I've done that before for that reason.

I suppose it's why PC building as a hobbyist is fun, there are a lot of balance points and you can tweak a lot of knobs to balance many different things between power/price/performance/power consumption/whatever else.

MudMan , 17 days ago

At some point I'm gonna get bored of reminding people of this.

Hey, remember Timeline?

That's how you know this isn't how it works.

MudMan , 17 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

Nope, it's the exact opposite. Timeline looked a lot more like Apple's Recall equivalent they're rolling out. It monitored your activity, not just your screen, and then stored the output on the "cloud" so it could be shared across computers.

I don't want either, but if you ask me if I want my screen recorded on-device or my logged activity shared across all machines and stored on MS's servers I'll take Recall any day.

So my point is, Timeline didn't "soften" anything. It went away on the launch of Win11. And nobody was "softened" because when it resurfaced as "Recall" everybody freaked right out immediately all over again. Bad ideas are bad ideas. You can wait for people to get over minor inconveniences or tradeoffs, or just live with whatever percentage of people find something to be a dealbreaker if the value you extract from it is way higher than the business you lose. But a bad idea is a bad idea.

Also my point: people here don't know how to take a win. Recall is gone, I'd expect it to never come back, unless Apple does MS's job for them and when it resurfaces it works exactly like the Apple feature that works exactly like Recall without anybody freaking out about it.

MudMan , 17 days ago

They just announced an AI integration across the entire OS for iOS, iPadOS and MacOS. Basically they'll log all your activity and feed it to multiple AI models to let you ask for what you want, as they describe it. It mostly looks like Timeline but with AI search and assistant features bolted on to it.

They did a good job of not making it sound as creepy as Recall... but it kinda is.

MudMan , 17 days ago

Yeah, I've been talking for a few days about how bizarre it is to see the difference in reception to what is conceptually a couple of very similar features. It's nuts how good Apple are at selling this sort of stuff almost with zero correlation to what it is that they're selling.

Which is, I suppose, why nobody will ever bring up having said that the Vision Pro was an iPhone 1.0 moment. They know who they are.

Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit and they aren't that good. Admittedly MS did an amazing job at making this Recall thing seem as unappealing as possible at every step, so... maybe the bar was just that low.

MudMan , 17 days ago

For the record, MS also had stated that users can exclude specific applications from Recall and devs can exclude specific screens or content from being recorded.

I'm not sure that "Apple already indexes and has unfettered access to all your granular data" isa good defense, either. That's... worse. Although for what it's worth it does seem like this AI thing is way more intrusive than Spotlight, in that it's not just searching keywords inside files it can parse, it is connecting data from multiple sources to generate context about you, some of which is being processed off-site. I don't think it's as easily expoitable as the 1.0 version of Recall MS described, but if your concern is with an AI or a corporation having access to information, or to compromising information being accessed through easy search by anybody with local access... well, yeah, it's all degrees of bad here.

Didn't you and I already litigate this in a different thread? I'd rather not rehash that.

MudMan , 17 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

I don't think that's correct. Recall will not draw any data from any app you don't actively display onscreen. In fact it will not draw any data you don't specifically display on screen. Apple's Recall will know about data that is stored in applications whether you open it or not, as it's been explained, but it will work with specific applications drawing from specific data (and it does also look at your screen, although it's not clear if it does that constantly or on demand).

Just to quote the current Apple Intelligence landing page. This is posted by Apple itself as promo materials:

Apple Intelligence empowers Siri with onscreen awareness, so it can understand and take action with things on your screen. If a friend texts you their new address, you can say “Add this address to their contact card,” and Siri will take care of it.

Awareness of your personal context enables Siri to help you in ways that are unique to you. Can’t remember if a friend shared that recipe with you in a note, a text, or an email? Need your passport number while booking a flight? Siri can use its knowledge of the information on your device to help find what you’re looking for, without compromising your privacy.

Seamlessly take action in and across apps with Siri. You can make a request like “Send the email I drafted to April and Lilly” and Siri knows which email you’re referencing and which app it’s in. And Siri can take actions across apps, so after you ask Siri to enhance a photo for you by saying “Make this photo pop,” you can ask Siri to drop it in a specific note in the Notes app — without lifting a finger.

That sure sounds to me like Siri now looks at you screen, logs your past activity, or at least searches through pre-existing system logs of your activity, and has access to and processes all your information.

Again, Recall and "AppleI" will both draw different sets of data, but they are both drawing new data at the system level. And they're both making context inferences on your data. Sure, the process is different, they each have issues the other doesn't (MS's 1.0 version had glaring security holes and it's too human-readable, Apple's version is sending your data to a server for processing, instead of being all on-device), but it's fundamentally doing the same thing with the same startling access to your data. Both companies insist they're not logging your data anywhere outside your device. To me, that's not enough in either case.

MudMan , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

This is hilarious.

I love the faith, too. Like, of Microsoft, of all people. The "your Xbox is your cable box now" Microsoft. The "Here's mandatory Kinect, the Wii killer" Microsoft. The Windows Me Microsoft. The "Windows 8 is now a touch OS" Microsoft.

I gotta say, you guys really give tech companies the benefit of the doubt. I've seen too much, perhaps.

In that vein, let me propose a more accurate picture:
https://img.movieboom.biz/movie/screen/681/19.jpg

MudMan , 16 days ago

No, I did. I can see it.

Welcome to the Fediverse, where me attaching a picture and you seeing the picture are not necessarily the same thing.

Hey, I am an equal opportunity criticiser. Fedia/Kbin/Lemmy suck at this.

I added a text link, at least, but that's already way too far to go for that joke.

MudMan , 16 days ago (edited 16 days ago)

Before I had to try twice for Fedi reasons, I was mostly pushing it for the joke.

But honestly, this is so on brand for MS. They came up with a superficially marketable idea, botched the execution, then botched the marketing even harder. Then Apple came up with the same feature and everybody liked it.

The idea that this is them playing the long game is hilarious. Not only is that not how big software companies work, it is definitely not how MS works. People just want to sound worldly and cynical and instead come across paranoid and delusional. The idea that everybody working on this knew it sucked and they shipped it anyway is extremely plausible.

Can they execute? Sure! But can they also get stuck failing to push back on a bad idea until they end up shipping something nobody likes? Often, objectively. And almost always subjectively because they also consistently suck at branding their stuff, both the good and the bad.

MudMan , 18 days ago

The summary is slightly misleading, you can log in offline on a computer with a MS account. In fairness, the language on the article around this is pretty confusing, but you're not locked out of your PC if your Internet is down, which is what the bullet point summary implies.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Well, yeah, but that's the clarification I'm making. By default you DO need a connection to create or sign in to an account to complete the install process as it's currently presented, but once an account is set up you can log in to that machine whether it's connected to the Internet or not. The summary makes it sound like you need to be online for every login, which is not the case.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Was that a work computer? I know on a work laptop I did have some time restrictions set by IT because they had some authentication policies, but my understanding is that on a Windows Home account you control there should be no time limit, although it may complain about your MS apps or treat it as a not-activated install after a while, I'm not sure. I admit that I have never put that to the test on a Win 11 PC. I definitely did on MS-account enabled Win 10, since I've stashed older PCs and then turned them back on offline later, but I don't think I've had an idle Win11 machine more than three months yet.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Sure, and you can go back to a local account from a MS account after the fact, I believe. But I'm going with the supported, default flows that MS surfaces to users without any workarounds here. I'm not even trying to nitpick.

MudMan , 18 days ago

OK, look, I don't like the online auth requirement for Windows 11, I think it's dumb and finicky. I'm not trying to defend it here, I was just trying to correct the record on a slightly misleading summary...

...but come on, any user with those needs can work around the login in like five minutes.

Retro gaming in 20 years will either work just fine on the next version of Windows or work on a Win11 install supporting an offline account. Heavy machinery shipping with Windows will presumably ship in a state where it can be authetnticated, so it should have some way to be online or to update to a version of Windows that does have auth servers, if Win11 stops having those for some reason. Bad drivers or simply not having connectivity hardware just requires using a USB device. Your phone will USB tether long enough to log in to Windows on first install just fine, I've done it before.

Don't get me wrong, it shouldn't be needed, and it's a stupid annoyance. The real answer to all those use cases is using the known workarounds to support offline accounts on first boot that MS should continue to surface and offer as a supported option. But let's not be disingenuously obtuse about how the software actually works. I've done way worse to keep a legacy OS running on an old machine.

MudMan , 18 days ago

I vividly remember the first time I heard someone suggest an always-online computer being a thing. I couldn't imagine the use for that, and the security implications terrified me. Let alone the cost, because of course I assumed I'd be paying for that by the minute.

Shouldn't give people ideas, I suppose.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Nah, it would be very hard. Presumably this only works if they can insert ads on the fly so they can cycle ads based on region and time. Static ads on videos would have been easy to do and easy to bypass.

If you don't know how many ads there are or what they look like or how long they are it becomes very hard to do timeline nonsense to avoid them. It also seems like it'd be expensive to do at the scale Youtube needs it, but maybe they figured it out. That would suck. We'll see, I suppose.

MudMan , 18 days ago

OK, can I be real about this for a second?

I'm torn about Youtube ad stuff. Genuinely.

On the one hand the ads suck, we have a good way to bypass them and I certainly don't want to watch Youtube videos if the ads are unskippable.

On the other hand, if I'm being honest I watch more Youtube than Netflix or Amazon Prime and I sure give those guys money for a subscription. If I counted the cost per watched minute, Youtube Premium would make way more sense than a bunch of subs I do pay.

But I also don't want to watch a Youtube that is a paid service. That was never the point. The reason I engage with it so much is it's supposed to be UGC, not TV.

So yeah, torn. Youtube is very weird and the relationship we all have with it is super dysfunctional, creators and viewers alike. We made a very strange future and now we have to deal with it.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Yeeeah, but my issue with that is they generated the expectation that it'd be free by using their investment money to muscle out smaller competitors. There was a time where Youtube was the biggest of a set of UGC video sites and some of the others were competitive. Now it's the only real alternative.

So from that perspective they made their bed, now they sleep in it.

MudMan , 18 days ago

That's a fair point, I do pay for subs in some smaller sites. A lot of the time I still watch the Youtube version because... well, that way the creators get paid twice and I'm probably already on YT, but still.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Guessing you'd get a lot of false positives that way, but I like the ingenuity.

MudMan , 18 days ago

I think Twitch's solution is different, isn't it? I don't watch enough live to know the details, but I imagine in Youtube's scenario they're not surfacing any details about what's an ad and what isn't beyond embedding something in the video itself. Otherwise it's pretty pointless. But hey, I guess I'm rooting for them doing this poorly.

MudMan , 18 days ago

Yep, that's also fair. Google is the leftovers from the "let them fight" approach to venture capital. Now we have a monopoly on many areas and nobody's left to do anything when Godzilla comes to visit.

MudMan , 17 days ago

The Giant Bomb site player specifically was way better than the contemporary Youtube player for a good long while. They were also better at prioritizing bitrate over resolution, since they weren't obsessed with pretending they had a pixel count advantage over competitors while compressing contents down to mush. If anything it's ironic that Youtube will now try to sell you bitrate as part of their subscription without cranking up the resolution, presumably because their creators no longer even try to upload 4K anymore.

Sorry, now I'm bringing up legacy gripes from a different decade. Carry on.

MudMan , 19 days ago

I don't know that this is a matter of performance, considering MS is pushing a specific TOPS spec to support these features. From the spec we have, several of the supported devices Apple is flagging for this feature are below the 40 TOPS spec required for Copilot+. I think that's more than they're putting in M4, isn't it?

Granted, Apple IS in fact sending some of this data to server to get processed, so on that front they are almost certainly deploying more computing power than MS at the cost of not keeping the processing on-device. Of course I get the feeling that we disagree about which of those is the "brute force" solution.

I also think you're misunderstanding what Apple and MS are doing here. They're not "training" a model based on your data. That'd take a lot of additional effort. They presumably have some combination of pre-existing models, some proprietary some third party and they are feeding your data into the models in response to your query to serve as context.

That's fundamentally different. It's a different step on the process, it's a different piece of work. And it's very similar to the MS solution because in both cases when you ask something the model is pulling your data up and sharing it with the user. The difference is that in MS's original implementation the data also resided in your drive and was easily accessible even without querying the model as long as you were logged into the user's local account.

But the misconception is another interesting reflection of how these things are branded. I suppose Apple spent a ton of time talking about the AI "learning" about you, implying a gradual training process, rather than "we're just gonna input every single text message you've ever sent into this thing whenever you ask a question". MS was all "we're watching you and our AI will remember watching you for like a month in case you forget", which certainly paints a different mental picture, regardless of the underlying similarities.

MudMan , 19 days ago

I just don't think that's plausible at all. I mean, they can "train" further by doing stuff like storing certain things somewhere and I imagine there's a fair amount of "dumb" algorithm and programming work going on under the whole thing...

...but I don't think there's any model training on device. That's orders of magnitude more processing power than running this stuff. Your phone would be constantly draining for months, it's just not how these things work.

MudMan , 19 days ago

It's spyware in that both applications are a centralized searchable repository that knows exactly what you did, when and how. And no, the supposed ability to limit specific applications is not a difference, MS also said you can block specific apps and devs can block specific screens within an app. They're both the same on that front, presumably.

What I'm saying is the reason people are reacting differently is down to branding and UX.