qwertywert_

I just did a quick read but I don't understand how this would help the case of your Gateway ethernet link going down temporarily and switching to Cellular WAN?

The client would still need some smart steering to select the correct route no? Does the gateway invalidate the ethernet address somehow? But with NAT you don't need to worry about it.

It doesn't ping. It is a text based language model spitting out text just read https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

Got one, and we are much smaller than qcom.

What server do you suggest they use? Android uses Google servers is that also abusive?

Nothing against us, I get it, stuff is complicated and hard to have a best solution for everyone.

Can't you disable NCSI in registry? Or does that not actually help for those other services internally?

But it works 99.999% of use-cases as a business decision, what do you suggest windows should do to make it a better user experience for their customers?

> You should be constructing a response to a challenge from the other end, not a response to a simple GET like it's 1999.

Really? Isn't simple better here, why are you making this sound so crazy? Also you can turn it off.

The author also had a good response for spoofing question imo: "So what if somebody spoofs it? Congratulations, you tricked Windows into showing a “full internet access” icon, and then when the user tries to go to a web site, they get an error."

You sound like a typical engineer who cannot see the bigger picture of business decisions.

Stripe is a competitive company with not great WLB from reviews, maybe he enjoys a fast-paced busy environment. He gets paid for it. If people at Stripe don't like that culture they can very easily leave and get a more relaxed job.

The only thing I use AWK for is getting at columns from output, (possibly processing or conditionally doing something on each) what would be the next big use-case?

Yes, to me they sound like similar questions as can a human-level AGI robot experience consciousness like we do, or is consciousness a purely physical thing. My opinion is yes to both but I guess i'm a physicalist/materialist.

Actually another comment points out something interesting, when we get black-out drunk we are basically in this zombie-state. We can talk and hit our head and physically our brain still reacts, but it was like we aren't actually there and our body is just on autopilot mode.

Emergent property through evolutionary selection, do you not believe in evolution?

If the brain is just processing things in complete chaos an animal would be completely useless, but with a part/thread dedicated to processing inputs and checking memory I think it is very obvious this function of consciousness would emerge through natural evolution.

I think so too, and the fact we put human consciousness far above other animals like elephants and dolphins is human ego imo. If we really believe in evolution then what else could the answer be?

It's a processing loop that helps with executive function, self-reflection etc. which I think lots of animals have some basic version of.

I just air-dry my glasses after dish soap cleaning, by whipping it in the air with my arm. Works pretty well actually.

Ah right, good question yes it seems like it could be possible..

The gravitational lensing matches exactly how it looked in Hubble's deep field overlay, so I would guess no the JWST lens is not causing any "false" gravitational lensing? If that's what you are asking.

I agree but also touch some grass.

Already trained, but still need some ~200GB GPU mem to run the model.

It's actually the opposite, it is really humbling to think of oneself as just random lucky phenomena. Regardless of what you think or whether humans are purely physical, we all create our own meaning and values you can't take that away from anyone. Who cares if it's physical or something else.

I also think it's your human ego to think we are "beyond" any machine. Like cmon do you not believe in evolution? We came from fish it is a fact.

I think as scientists it is more responsible to assume humans are not special, then prove things from there.

> I did not

Well, it's the same link. I only asked because it looks like you were intending to paste a different link (or anchor) than the original link; It's confusing for readers.

Why did you link the same link?

Background scanning is a normal WiFi feature, you don't break association state when doing this. It is required for regular and fast roaming.

Also it must be notifying userland it happened because location services is trying to gather that info.

Most WiFi clients enable background scanning when signal strength is below some threshold, so you would never notice latency spikes unless connection is already poor.

Basically what I'm trying to say is how can anyone who believes the brain is purely physical (not spiritual), believe that we just simply cannot achieve human-level intelligence by machine (no matter how complex the machine gets).

I thought most scientists agree that the brain is purely physical, when looking at the building blocks of life and evolution, but maybe i'm wrong.

> that requires abilities that computers simply do not and cannot have.

You imply brains are more than extremely complex circuitry then? I think everyone actually in tech agrees the gap is really huge right now, Yann LeCun admits machine learning is not enough on its own.

But aren't you really limiting what a "computer" could be by definition? If a computer with huge memory, interconnect between memory, huge number of different neural nets + millions of other logic programs that all communicate perfectly with each other - why could this theoretical "computer" not achieve a human level consciousness? This computer could also have many high throughput sensory inputs streaming in at all times, and ability to interact with the physical world rather than conventional machines sitting in a rack.

Also why argue that it is simply impossible, because if we don't truly understand consciousness in 2022, how can we say we can't implement it when we don't formally know what it is?

I think overestimate human intelligence, we have basic reward functions that are somewhat understood, like most animals, but these reward functions build and get higher and higher level with our complexity. Humans have sex as a major reward function, so why would a current machine in a rack "think" about things in a way that humans do.

Search through messages doesn't give any context or even let you jump to the context. Very unresponsive scrolling. Notifications have been unreliable for me.

Are you sure? This isn't my subject area but CRI-O looks like an alternative to containerd and implements the OCI compliant runtime like containerd does. And then there is a 3rd which is docker engine which is the one being dropped.

I thought its moving to CRI-o as well instead of containerd, or is k8s just not using docker, and containerd still supported in the future?

I read Joe Elden Ring.

I though everyone knew this? The brain wouldn't just immediately stop working because a heart stopped pumping, there would be some sort of delay effect there.

Really? I don't see that behavior when I last did socket programming, or testing with netcat?

That does not seem easier to think about, which address was this process on, you now have 1 interface with possibly 100s of addresses, need to keep track which address is for what application..

Seems more logical to just do the IP+port tuple. Maybe having TCP and UDP on separate port "namespaces" is the confusing part here and someone above mentioned could be simplified.