I use incus to pass a containerized kali os the Wayland and x11 sockets, and whatever else maybe in the /run/user/1000 folder and x11 socket folder, like pipewire. It isn't perfect, but it's really nice spawning a shell/bar/etc inside the container and it goes over the current Wayland desktop. Then I am able to use it to spawn other graphical apps. It works really well. Incus is amazing, or lxc and wayland in general.
I still have the og steam controller, three of them in fact. They still work but I lost the dongle and rely on Bluetooth. It was an experience.
Definitely won't consider buying a controller from them again. The Xbox controller is perfect. Simple and good enough to use.
As far as I can tell, Linux will remain not targeted by attempts to sponge off all kinds of user data. Which makes me so happy that I finally made the leap.
I asked GPT 5 to spell out the individual letters of strawberry or blueberry. It did it correctly by essentially putting a space char in between the letters.
Then I simply asked it to count all unique letters in the word. GPT 5 still got it completely correct without thinking.
Lastly I asked how many r(or b) is in the word. This one for some reason switched to GPT 5 thinking with few seconds of reasoning. It out put the correct number.
I guess starting the conversation by painstakingly walking it over to the correct answer helps it out. Idk it's a silly test
Another caveat with this method is that both larger and smaller models need to behave very similar because a lot of the savings come from generating the necessary fluff around each detail such as grammar, formatting and words/letters that transition between each other.
Unsurprisingly gpt-oss has both larger and smaller models that work very similarly! Both model sizes are so similar that even if getting a few wrong would not be slowing down the performance enough to equal the speed of the larger model(which is the worst case with this setup). We want the speed of the smaller model as much as possible. That is all
I believe that is exactly the downside of using speculative decoding, which is why it is very important to have the models properly sized between each other by making sure the small use is big enough to be mostly correct while also being exceptionally faster than the larger one. However the larger one has to be fast enough that catching flaws won't introduce too manyrandom delays. Also, if the small one is incorrect then the larger one correcting the mistake is miles better than leaving in incorrect output.
It is about improving quality while allowing for faster speed most of the time. The tradeoff is that you consume more memory from having two models loaded vs one of them exclusively.
If you just focus on one then it would make sense to reduce memory usage by just running the smaller model.
Personally, I think bigger companies should be more proactive and work with some of the popular inference engine software devs with getting their special snowflake LLM to work before it gets released. I guess it is all very much experimental at the end of the day. Those devs are putting in God's work for us to use on our budget friendly hardware choices.
Local hosting and community support I will always offer more freedom than the rather poor filtering that big tech loves to do. Like why not offer option to pay for copyright content? Seriously, if they can identify it is copyright then they can allow to pay for it, but nope they rather intentionally filter out all of it and end up with useless product that will eventually be phased out.
data = { i+1 : sorted([ x for x in list(map(int, open('input').read().split()))[i::2]]) for i in range(2) }
total_distance = sum(list(map(lambda x: abs(x[0]-x[1]), zip(data[1], data[2]))))
print("part 1:", total_distance)
similarity_score = sum(list(map(lambda x: (x*data[2].count(x))*data[1].count(x), set(data[1]).intersection(data[2]))))
print("part 2:", similarity_score)
Yeah you are right, however some of what I said does have some merit as there are plenty of things I talked about that apply to why you would need dynamic preemption. However, the other person who mentioned the issue with needing to take cpu cycles on the dynamic system that checks and might apply a new preemptive config is more overhead. The kernel can't always know how long the tasks will take so it is possible that the overhead for dynamically changing for new tasks that have short runtime will be worse than just preemptively setting the preemptive configuration.
But yeah thanks for making that distinction. Forgot to touch on the differences
Mostly because such a system would install in fighting among programs that all will want to be prioritized as important. tbf it will mostly be larger companies who will take advantage of it for "better" user experience. Which is kind of important to either reduce to a minimal amount of running applications or simply control it manually for the short burst most users will experience. If anything cpu intensive tasks are more likely to be bad code than some really effective use of resources.
Though when it comes to gaming, there is a delicate balance as game performance should be prioritized but not be allowed to cause the system to lock up for multitasking purposes.
Either way, considering this is mostly for idle tasks. It has little importance to allow it to be automated beyond giving users a simple command for scripting purposes that users can use for toggling various behaviors.
I fully agree with you.
I wish people would stop focusing heavily on how removing features can potentially decrease attacks.
Especially when those exact features are used to prevent the WORST possible attack vector, a mishandled or exploited Clipboard. I do not see how else would a user be able to gain access to the passwords without either using the keyboard, or opening the edit dialogue to select "show password" which would just make them plain-text and MUCH easier to attack.
These features were introduced to not only offer ease of use, but to facilitate a more secure method of transferring the password to the desired location.
These maintainers clearly did NOT think these things through and potentially created a much less secure package than intended.
The data has to be decrypted and read, so eventually you reverse engineer the client and figure out how to decrypt on the fly, then they wise up and introduce key based signing, which you eventually try to steal from the client and breaking the encryption again, then anti cheat is implemented... thus, the cat and mouse game is born, lol
I dont buy the anti theft angle either. People's phones still end up stolen, and they are still contacted by the thieves to remove the icloud account. ICloud is a good enough feature to prevent theft, and having authorized repair options in it is great. So, that notion is already pretty bad. If someone replaces the motherboard with a blank iPhone(no iCloud attached), then a check of parts that are serialized to an iCloud account should be implemented to prevent harvesting parts from a locked iPhone. There are better consumer friendly methods that Apple simply ignores.
the more interesting thing is why the default state has to be made vulnerable in the first place instead of just making lockdown the default method of using an apple device
also substantially slower than the speed of light, while not the biggest factor is also slower than other forms of transmission.
As you said, there is a lot of noise that needs powerful error correction to be used, such as how the Reed-Solomon code was used in deep space communication. Prepackaging information before relying on wireless communication is usually the most necessary part of any reliably complex system.
Alongside what everyone else mentioned, I believe a part of it is that the margins are being spent on frivolous; Instead of putting the money back into the business it is hoarded or spent on personal goods and services by those that control the company/business/corporation. There is is inflationary reasons but we don't want to accept this fact or think about it at all. And yes giving employees proper wages and time off is an expense a business should pay and this is where a lot of wealth is being taken out of from the middle class.
Something that stuck out to me during my time in college business courses is the fact that many teachers are pushing the idea of a manager, director, or other executive roles, into how to understand and allocate resources. One of the resources is humans, either as employees or, in other moments, the users. While clients and investors are more or less seen as another team or "entity"(eg, partner company) that facilitates the use or funding of the project. Just my two cents on what I have seen being thought to the next generation. I don't know how to feel about this. I am interested in others' opinions on this.
I like number 7, the documentation one, which really goes to show how little the real item is understood while everyone else is creating/imagining their own version. Dissociation within the whole team.
It's the monthly fee I have a problem with. Unless the monthly fee guarantees a new pack if the battery degradation from an increased DoC, then it is good. As it currently stands, it is literally a jerk move on the company's side.
Because it is more expensive to dig underground vs. just slapping heat generators(ac unit) on top of everyone's house and collecting the extra money in the power bill than doing it the right way.
My biggest question is how they are going to police this. Will each download contain hidden flags to mark it as your account? How will they be able to discern what account it came from? Sounds like a nightmare to control and may end up costing them more in the long run.
earlier in the week, someone posted that the person who posted the paper early is someone who wanted to fund the project, but the researchers didn't want to include him. So he took as much data as he could collect and posted it publicly with the addition of his name. He is not a researcher or scientist for the team.
Plenty of people think that a url needs to have a .com to be correct, and the only time a different higher domain is used is when they go from a .com website(like google) or a bookmark/automatically opens. They just think of them like doors in a building. They have to go through a door to access the "other internet." (Go from a .com site to crossover to the other levels of the internet) while bookmarks and other methods are essentially literal shortcuts in a physical sense(even though they can type it into the address bar) equating a shortcut to a button on an elevator, etc.
It is ignorant to not plan on methods of habilitating more people. There is an unsolved problem of space constraints and transportation costs of essentials and optional resources. Reducing life expectancy and population will not solve these fundamental issues. If these two constraints are able to be solved sufficiently enough, then people will be able to live in larger swaths of land or in outer/near orbit space or within the oceans. It all depends on how we progress from here. Right now we are having the same issues that plagued the neolithic era. Our increase in population and life expectancy will end up hurting us because of the unsolved logistical issues.
In another comment I spoke about how many more people are able to reach 60+ years of age, and that the amount of people living longer have exponentially grown. Our world population reaching another billions milestone at faster timeframes. Scarily, life expectancy was always at around 20-30 years for a large portion of history for humans.(most who reached 15 years of age were capable of living to 50 years albeit they were considered to be outliers) Around neolithic times, we had moved towards increasing population density and promoting growths. This time period was odd as it lowered the overall life expectancy because there were more humans that died from other methods as lifestyles changed from hunter-gatherer to more sedentary lifestyles. Hunter-gatherer lifestyles required loads of land for a single human to survive, which the neolithic era had been able to fix with the introduction of farming. Due to density, more people started attacking one another for variety of reasons and heavily relied on farm crops to sustain increased human populations. Societal growth of centers such as towns and cities then countries continued. Excluding many outliers, life expectancy only started to rise in the 1950s and has kept further increasing past 50+ years and 60+ years.
So yes there is something special about reaching 200 years of age. As it will singal a milestone no other human has ever reached from all of history. On the other hand, life expectancy growing at an alarming rate is putting a lot of strain on resources and land availability.
Who is to say we are not reaching the levels of irreparable decay or physical damage to render death more likely? Instead of death, how about the years or months before the eventuality where we are losing our capabilities in a variety of methods? I say we are reaching this type of milestone you have spoken about in your comment. Even the tidbit about rich people hogging resources because they are doing exactly that right now!
I say this because I do believe that a lot of research into aging is just finding a lot of strange oddities in our genes, and biological mechanisms. There was never any long term biological process such as natural selection, darwinism and survivorship bias to remove or refine them into something that works better or works for indefinite lengths of time. It is only recently that more humans are able to live 60+ years and that there is billions of humans compared to the numbers of live humans in previous centuries.