1,987 karma · joined March 10, 2021
Moreover local AI is not free. You'll need proper hardware to run it which you have to pay extra for it.
There are a lot of good things that need to be explained to people, but nobody ever managed to. I don't think this will be any different.
> because the vast majority of people need the $20 paid plan at most
Exactly, people are not gonna invest time and money when there's already something else that satisfies their need.
Local AI will need to be both better and more convenient in order to be adoped by the masses.
Which subset though? Some of them are not supported by some recent CPUs (e.g. 2024).
Not to mention Alder Lake not supporting AVX512.
This will work only for the most basic SIMD usages.
> CPU vendors must offer a basic set of vector instructions that is supported on all architectures.
This will take decades because you cannot change existing architectures/processors.
IMO this is the fundamental problem with HTML and CSS. You'll always have some part of the styling in the HTML due to needing extra divs and spans. At that point splitting the styling outside into the CSS splits your attention and Tailwind "solves" that by moving everything back into HTML.
Note that I don't like Tailwind, but I would rather have a way of styling that does not need to rely on the existance of extra divs and spans to work.
No, and requiring this will likely give the opposition counter points.
You don't need the source code at all. You only need the ability to run the server yourself.
Bun is not a Javascript interpreter. But I do see the point.
I can run an Android app on my phone and have it pop up in Android Studio. I don't see a reason you couldn't do this with a remote simulator or even a remote physical phone.
How much of that critical infrastructure runs on .NET Framework as opposed to the latest .NET Core though?
The patch would have been rejected either way because it was out of date and conflicted with other work going on.
It generally depends on the contract the merchant has with payment provider:
- some have relatively high merchant fees to cover for interchange fees
- others (generally called IC+) have the merchant pay the IC fee plus some other (generally much smaller) fee to the payment provider
In both cases it's the merchant that ends up paying them. It's not a concidence that in Europe (where there are caps to IC fees) the fees that merchants pay are generally lower.
You first have to assume this for software engineers. Not everyone agree with that (note: that doesn't mean the same people don't agree that AI is not _useful_).
AIs still have a ton of issues that would be devastating in a doctor. Remember all the AIs mistakingly deleting production DBs? Now imagine they prescribed a medicine cocktail that killed the patient instead. No thanks. There's a totally different bar to the consequences of mistakes.
In my opinion what matters is the functionality. If it's provided by a nightly-only crate or as a nightly-only feature of an otherwise non-nightly-only crate it doesn't really matter.
But I agree that this is become more and more rare.
To be fair it's not even a lower bound, as using a stable compiler doesn't imply the absence of nightly only feature (as in Cargo features, the ones you can enable on crates you depend on).
This is in addition to the already existing Qt frontend.
I woke up and indeed I made that mistake. (This was during covid so the exam was done remotely and I still had the paper with the calculations at home).
For card-not-present transactions (i.e. online ones) the liability is on the merchant. They however also have an incentive NOT to use 3DS because it adds real friction to purchases. I'm also not sure if all USA banks even support 3DS.