Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

NeatNit

@NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

NeatNit ,

He might, but that's the whole point of federation - there's hundreds of other instances (including the one you're using) that he can't buy all at once. If one instance gets taken over, Lemmy as a whole is still strong.

Even if he buys the organization developing Lemmy, I have faith the community will fork it and everyone will stop using Musk's version.

NeatNit ,

I hate paywalls as much as the next guy but when I think about it from the publisher's protective I really don't see a way to be sustainable in this environment without a paywall. I'm sure the writers mostly want their articles read but they also want (and deserve) to be paid for their work. How do you do that if, like you imply, the content needs to be completely free for everyone to access? And I'll bet you use adblock too (I sure do) making it even more impossible.

I don't know how this shit works but the way you frame it isn't it.

NeatNit ,

it's all but guaranteed. Reminds me of this Computerphile video: https://youtu.be/WO2X3oZEJOA?t=874 TL;DW: there were "glitch tokens" in GPT (and therefore ChatGPT) which undeniably came from Reddit usernames.

Note, there's no proof that these reddit usernames were in the training data (and there's even reasons to assume that they weren't, watch the video for context) but there's no doubt that OpenAI already had scraped reddit data at some point prior to training, probably mixed in with all the rest of their text data. I see no reason to assume they completely removed all reddit text before training. The video suggest reasons and evidence that they removed certain subreddits, not all of reddit.

Are there any genuine benefits to AI?

I can see some minor benefits - I use it for the odd bit of mundane writing and some of the image creation stuff is interesting,, and I knew that a lot of people use it for coding etc - but mostly it seems to be about making more cash for corporations and stuffing the internet with bots and fake content. Am I missing something...

NeatNit ,

Watch any video at random by John Green (vlogbrothers, and author of several successful books that I haven't read) and you'll know more than you could ever hope about TB.

NeatNit ,

okay, but there still needs to be a part that processes the scan images and that's not LLM.

NeatNit ,

I think each one of those dystopian ideas can be done in a safe and humane way, but needless to say it is not the current trajectory.

NeatNit ,

I found out way too late that "all but" means exactly the same thing as "almost". If "all but X" is taken literally, it should mean "you can describe this thing in lots of ways, but it's definitely not X".

(I am not a native English speaker but I use English more then my native tongue due to being online so much)

NeatNit ,

I think they use one of the FF forks. LibreWolf? I've never tried it but it's the one I keep hearing around the fediverse.

Scientists develop game-changing 'glass brick' that could revolutionize construction: 'The highest insulating performance' (www.thecooldown.com)

Scientists develop game-changing 'glass brick' that could revolutionize construction: 'The highest insulating performance'::The team of scientists developed an aerogel glass brick, which is a translucent and thermally insulating material.

NeatNit ,

"Revolutionize construction" is a questionable headline.

How about: revolutionize one very specific part construction under certain niche circumstances? Rolls off the tongue!

NeatNit ,

I don't think the photo at the start of the article has anything to do with it, it's credited as a stock image. Was there another picture?

NeatNit ,

this doesn't help at all

Edit to clarify: You're just explaining back-end stuff that should be completely invisible to users (and normally is). The parent comment specifically mentioned partitions, when you install a new Linux OS the installer asks you "how do you want your drive split up? where do you want the swap, and how much?" etc etc. which a newbie can't even begin to answer, it shouldn't even ASK that if the user didn't specifically choose to set this completely manually.

NeatNit ,

Thank you for this, it's a great breakdown. One question lingers for me:

You will then have to input intimate personal information into a proprietary software, by law.

Isn't Blink also FOSS? As you mentioned Chromium is open source, and my (weak) understanding is that Google are themselves bound by LGPL when it comes to Blink. So it's hyperbole - or just false - to say you'd be required to use proprietary software. It's developed by a shoddy company but it's not proprietary software - so long as other browsers exist that use the engine, of which there are plenty.

NeatNit ,

Ugh. Lemmy just deleted my whole comment because "Cancel" is WAY too easy to press... Dammit. Here's a reconstruction:

I didn't expect such a thorough reply! I still think Google is bound by LGPL because Blink is eventually derived from KHTML which was licensed under LGPL. This was based on just some quick Wikipedia "research", but now here's some better proof thanks to your links:

LICENSE_FOR_ABOUT_CREDITS says:

The terms and conditions vary from file to file, but are one of:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
[...]

*OR*

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
[...]

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE COMPUTER, INC. ``AS IS'' AND ANY
[...]

                  GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
                       Version 2, June 1991
 Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
[...]

So the license differs from file to file, and importantly, some files are still LGPL. Clicking around sorta randomly I've found an example: Page.cpp which starts with this copyright notice:

/*
 * Copyright (C) 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 Apple Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 * Copyright (C) 2008 Torch Mobile Inc. All rights reserved. (http://www.torchmobile.com/)
 *
 * This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
 * modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public
 * License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
 * version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
 * This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
 * Library General Public License for more details.
 *
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU Library General Public License
 * along with this library; see the file COPYING.LIB.  If not, write to
 * the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor,
 * Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
 */

So from my understanding of (L)GPL (which is the bare minimum understanding and potentially wrong), since some files are LGPL, Google must continue to release the full source code indefinitely, including the files that are licensed under BSD. Well, until the copyright on the LGPL files runs out, but thanks to Disney that's a very long way away in the US at least. Correct me if that's wrong.

The Android tragedy is shit but I don't think it's the same, though I do see the similarities. IIRC Android was started by Google so they have full ownership and control over it and aren't bound by any license, which is a different situation from Blink. Not to mention Blink is sort of limited in scope and can't really be taken apart and have its components parted off and replaced with proprietary bits - it's a web rendering engine, it only works as a complete package. Android is an operating system and the operating system is still FOSS, Google can make the argument that usable default apps aren't a necessary part of the operating system.

With Blink, but I don't think they have a legal way to nerf Blink FOSS to that degree. Any part of the web engine must remain FOSS. They differentiate their browser through the rest of the browser - UI, extensions store, sync, branding. Those parts of the browser are the equivalent of Google's proprietary default apps on proprietary Android.

As for alternative browsers using Blink - I'll admit I didn't actually have anything in mind and pulled that right out of my you-know-where. But it feels like if there's a vacuum in that space there'll always be someone to fill that vacuum. Right now Gecko is still relevant so the vacuum is filled with Gecko browsers. If Gecko really becomes unusable, I find it hard to believe that the same kinds of groups that maintain Gecko browsers today wouldn't continue to do the same with Blink.

Wikipedia also lists various browsers using Blink, including Falkon and Dooble licensed under GPL and BSD respectively. I haven't heard of them before, but there. (Again, I'm not doing more research than Wikipedia right now, feel free to do so)

NeatNit ,

The website on desktop. Footer says "BE: 0.19.3" so it's up to date.

NeatNit ,

Please write it with writing quill technology and send it to me using homing pigeon technology.

NeatNit ,

no, never has been. it's pronounced like pseudo.

NeatNit ,

you anarchist!

NeatNit , (edited )

I've been looking for info about this for months, as it was obviously a part of the EU's anti-gatekeeping legislation from last year, but I couldn't find any info. Specifically I wanted to know which apps would be able to communicate with WhatsApp - Telegram? Signal? Something else?

And now that there's an article, it's behind a paywall...

Edit: managed to read it through Firefox's reader mode. Unfortunately they don't know, but not for lack of trying:

So far, it is unclear which companies, if any, are planning to connect their services to WhatsApp. WIRED asked 10 owners of messaging or chat services—including Google, Telegram, Viber, and Signal—whether they intend to look at interoperability or had worked with WhatsApp on its plans. The majority of companies didn’t respond to the request for comment. Those that did, Snap and Discord, said they had nothing to add.

The only service they mentioned that definitely will have chat interoperability is Facebook Messenger.... Yeah, no fucking thanks.

NeatNit ,

Not yet, if I'm reading this right! They will be, because the EU forced them to be I guess?

I am finding it as ridiculous as you are.

NeatNit ,

Adium... They named an app 'the element of advertisement'?

NeatNit ,

I definitely expect this. And I expect the EU to tear both them and Apple a new one.

NeatNit ,

This is how I see it: Facebook is essentially a government. (Replace Facebook with any other social media platform that's too big to compete with). It's where the people are, and like it or not, you have to be on Facebook to reach the masses.

I've never used Facebook in any real capacity, and at times it was to my detriment. At University, Facebook groups were (are?) how students communicate with each other, share information and knowledge, ask for help, etc. By not being on Facebook I missed out on all of that stuff. It's futile to try to get everyone else to move elsewhere - it just ain't happening.

So Facebook is a de-facto government: people HAVE to be on Facebook, and the company has the exclusive ability to police the platform and control how it can be used - e.g. through APIs and the website interface. Everyone else is at the whims of that.

But as a government, Facebook is obviously not a democracy. It's a dictatorship. Maybe an oligarchy. Look I know very little about political systems, but we can all probably agree that it's as far from a democracy as can be.

It is my opinion that governments need to wise up to this. Tech platforms that become nearly as powerful as governments are a direct threat to democracy when they don't have any of the checks and balances that democracies have. Not to mention when the governments themselves begin to rely on these platforms to publish announcements and stuff. The EU's Digital Markets Act is a big step in the right direction. I hope it's just the start.

NeatNit ,

Reminds me of:

https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/fad2f4a9-927c-4abe-8d25-95cb6a473c0b.png

(source)

Making a PDF that’s larger than Germany (alexwlchan.net)

Some version of this has been floating around the Internet since 2007, probably earlier. This tweet is pretty emblematic of posts about this claim: it’s stated as pure fact, with no supporting evidence or explanation. We’re meant to just accept that a single PDF can only cover about half the area of Germany, and we’re not...

NeatNit ,

For real! How am I going to make a 1:1 map of Europe like this?!

NeatNit ,

The takeaway is that the format doesn't have any limit, but Adobe Acrobat in particular implements an arbitrary cutoff size. Other readers, such as Firefox's built-in PDF reader or Mac's Preview, can handle any arbitrary size. The article ends with a PDF the size of the universe, weighing an unimaginable 549 bytes!

But that limitlessness can come at a cost: according to the article, Preview doesn't handle UserUnit which should affect page size, while Acrobat (and Firefox) do. I'm guessing (gut feeling) Acrobat probably supports the most features overall, Firefox probably supports the vast majority of those used in practice, and Preview only allows Apple Approved™ PDF features and extensions deemed worthy of Their Appleness's consideration. Chrome's PDF reader is probably on the same level as Firefox, I guess.

NeatNit , (edited )
  • Adobe originally had a maximum page size of 45 inches square.
  • In 2001 they increased that to 200 inches
  • And in 2004 Adobe increased it to 15,000,000 inches (a bit larger than Germany) which is still kinda sucky if you want to show a map on a PDF

It's unclear why Acrobat has to have a limitation at all, since other PDF programs have no such limitation. More importantly, Acrobat only supports up to 200.00 x 200.00 in (5.08 x 5.08 m) using the standard MediaBox setting - any higher than that and you get a warning. The only way to push past that is to also set a UserUnit value, which essentially acts as a multiplier. This is all detailed in the article.

But Apple's Preview doesn't support UserUnit, meaning a PDF larger than 200 x 200 in can't be displayed correctly in both Acrobat and Preview. If you set it higher using just MediaBox, then Preview will show it fine but Acrobat will truncate it. If you set MediaBox to the highest values Acrobat accepts and use UserUnit as a multiplier, then Acrobat will show it fine but Preview would not (I don't know if it would truncate it or show it scaled down). So when it comes to PDFs larger than 200 x 200 in, you can choose either up to 15,000,000.00 x 15,000,000.00 in in Acrobat or as large as you like in Preview - you can't have both.

As for “Their Appleness’s consideration” they generally use floating point numbers for coordinates and sizes. Which is how, as it says in the OP’s article, it’s able to handle a PDF trillions of light years in size. A double precision floating point number can be really big.

More important though, it means you can process it with hardware accelerated floating point operations which are incredibly fast. And Apple’s PDF renderer needed to be fast because for years PDF was the data format used by the window manager for pretty much all screen drawing operations. They weren’t doing that on modern fast hardware either, they were doing it decades ago on slow hardware. With decent performance.

If there are features missing it’s probably because they would slow things down too much.

All interesting and some things I didn't know, but this is completely irrelevant. A PDF-reading app (i.e. Preview) does not have to use, and almost certainly does not use the same PDF rendering engine as the desktop rendering one you described. An obvious relevant example is pages - the desktop renderer doesn't need to know about or render pages at any point. It doesn't deal with the size of a page, the existence of multiple pages, or pages of different sizes. It has only one canvas to draw in. A PDF viewer app OTOH obviously has to be able to handle all of these things, and render them into a format that can be pushed to the system's graphics API.

See this StackExchange answer, which quotes this paragraph from Ars Technica (emphasis mine):

it is important to understand that Core Graphics Services deals with more or less "ready-to-display" data sent to it from higher layers in the graphics system. It is a pixel pusher, not a graphics creator

It doesn't deal with any features, whereas a reader app must deal with many features. So discussing it is irrelevant for the Preview app.

Edit: and I was only poking fun at Apple's policies in general. Their current crusade against anything that isn't 100% under their totalitarian control on iOS in Europe is most telling. I think in this case the only reason they don't support UserUnit is that it's basically never used in practice and they never realized it's missing.

NeatNit ,

Your aspirations are too tame.

NeatNit ,

it stands for Mars (A Remote Satellite (of the sun))

NeatNit ,

Now I want to see a video of a giraffe actually tripping over a rock. It has to have happened at some point, animals aren't immune to tripping!

NeatNit ,

This is all correct but it's missing freshly-squeezed orange juice over in A tier

NeatNit ,

When you're so poor the airline prefers to spend more money on fuel than they charge you (due to worse aerodynamics) just so the other passengers don't need to share air with you

NeatNit ,

I'm convinced it's all BS. The best thing for the human body, in nearly every field, is variety. Sleep however you want, mix it up, whatever. Your comfort is the best indicator. And the consequences of a bad sleeping position are rarely so dire.

NeatNit ,

You realise that having to try a whole bunch of other distros is so much worse compared to the "turn key experience" they're after, right? And it's a valid complaint. I generally agree with the sentiment, even though I've more or less sworn off Windows whenever I can possibly avoid it.

NeatNit ,

you seem to have French'd the guarantee

NeatNit ,

it's not your fault, languages are confusing as hell

NeatNit ,

which part is the face and which part is the hat?

NeatNit ,

and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.

This part is skippable, right? Any reason a user should ever care about this?

(note: never heard of LVM before this thread)

NeatNit ,

Sometimes, we must face reality. Newly developed safety features are a selling point and people do pay more for safer cars. If law dictated (and enforced) that all cars must have the exact same safety features, there would be no financial incentive to develop better safety, or much less incentive at least. In reality, car safety features are one of the few examples of things actually trickling down: today's cheapest cars have safety features that at some point only existed in the most expensive luxury cars. This is fine.

None of this applies to whatever the fuck the original post is about though.

NeatNit ,

Why would I accept a reality that I think is fucked? No I am not gonna do that.

I claim that this particular aspect of reality is actually fine, definitely acceptable and possibly even good. As I said, new/better car safety features do reach the cheapest models within a number years, making it a net good. Of all the things car companies do wrong, such as privacy, I really don't think this is one of them.

As for directly answering you, "Why would I accept a reality that I think is fucked?" -- I think I'm misinterpreting you when I interpret that as you basically living outside of reality. That's an option, I don't think it's a good one.

NeatNit ,

Alright then :)

Thanks for being my first non-toxic conversation on Lemmy :D

NeatNit ,

What the hell does it have to do with being American?

NeatNit ,

what the heck is a range? search results are expectedly useless as it's an extremely common word for something else

NeatNit ,

That means you don't get any of the benefits of it being a smart TV. Which is fine, but unlike a washing machine there are actually obvious benefits for a smart TV.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •