supermatt

They already were on "1 big server" (a single VPS at digital ocean) and moved to another "1 big server" (a managed server at hertzner).

They saved money and lost nothing.

Now, if they so wish, they could use a portion of that to increase redundancy - but that wasn't the point of the article.

> If you doubt me, take, me up on it.

Given your confidence and the seemingly small amount of time you think it will take, this seems like something you should be proving rather than expecting others to do so.

Does "personal" here mean "run the model on your personal hardware", or just "give your personal data to meta"?

You are correct, I was mistaken - UNCLOS I was indeed ratified by the USA.

> "shall not suffer interference from other states when in international waters"

The strait of hormuz is NOT international waters.

UNCLOS states that "straits used for international navigation" shall allow transit with impedance, which would include the strait of Hormuz, but Iran has never ratified the treaty (and neither has the USA).

So your ideal is the EU as a federation - i.e. the removal of domestic authority.

Can you give concrete examples of these "important issues" that are supposedly being decided behind closed doors?

What sanctions are you talking about that require judicial supervision? Pretty sure all EU states can issue their own sanctions without needing a court to approve them.

How exactly is the Commission blocking public discourse? What are they doing, and where is this happening?

So your proposal is to remove the input from the individual state governments and make it entirely citizen led?

Wouldn't that make it a government and remove the sovereignty of the individual states?

Not saying thats a bad idea - its just the exact opposite of the usual "undemocratic" rhetoric.

A states interests are long term and strategic. These aren't the same as an aggregation of citizens relatively short term interests, but should absolutely be influenced by them.

I totally agree with what you say about elected representation - but I am also thankful that decisions aren't made through direct democracy given that so many people are often dangerously uninformed and easily manipulated.

No, this is a discussion about the "unelected" European Commission. I haven't mentioned the European Council because it is irrelevant.

The European Commission is formed of representatives of the individual states. They are NOT representatives of the citizens, other than by proxy.

YOUR government can request that THEIR representative raise or support legislation among the commission. If you have a problem with your countries representative at the commission then take that up with your government.

Proposals being "brought back" for discussion in some form is just a part of legislation. It happens EVERYWHERE - not just at the EU level.

Sanctions are proposed through the commission because it is a consensus of state government foreign policy.

How would YOU propose that the EU work to be "more democratic" - while also considering that your government needs to be involved and influential?

The whole idea with the current structure is that it "meets in the middle" between national sovereignty and citizen representation.

I agree it's not a perfect system, and there is certainly a lot of opportunity for positive change (I would like to have some process for parliament to request legislation from the council. I would like more transparency in what the commission does), but to dismiss it as "undemocratic" makes no sense and is just repeating an uniformed rhetoric.

The European Commission represents the interests of the member states, while the European Parliament represent the interests of the citizens. NO LAW CAN PASS without the consent of the citizens directly elected representatives. There is no "pushing through".

If you don't like how you are represented at the commission, then blame your government. It is THEIR representative - not yours.

Also, don't forget that the commission as a whole needs to be approved by a vote at European Parliament - i.e. by the directly elected representatives.

Clearly this is some advanced cyber-warfare technique intended to cause adversaries tools to fail with an "expired certificate" error...

> …every image was traceable to a single consenting artist

> …fine-tune a Stable Diffusion base model.

So your entire business proposition was a lie, as you literally used a base model trained on billions of images by other artists too!

> When we ran the full dataset through the deep scan, it caught every single confirmed phishing site with zero false negatives. The tradeoff is that it flagged all 9 of the legitimate sites in our dataset as suspicious

Huh? Does this mean it just flagged everything as suspicious?

Calling observational realism high school tier while working in 3D (as per your profile) is hilarious given your medium automates the very thing you are belittling and is literally taught these days at elementary school!

Any serious artist would respect technical competency. I guess that says a lot about your credentials “as an artist”.

I don’t understand your reasoning.

Are you suggesting that openclaw will magically infer a blog post url instead? Or that openclaw will traverse the blog of every site regardless of intent?

Anyway, AA do provide it as a text file at /llms.txt, no idea why you think it is a blog post, or how that makes it better for openclaw.

The solution is parents using the parental control feature on their children’s devices.

If laws need to be made about something it should be to punish those parents who neglect to safeguard their children using the tools already available to them.

If the parental controls currently provided aren’t sufficient then they should be modified to be so - in addition to filtering, they should probably send a header to websites and a flag to apps giving an age/rating.

And they hate that people are using different agents (like opencode) with their subscription - to the extent that they have actively been trying to block it.

With stupidity like this what do they expect? It’s only a matter of time before people jump ship entirely.

It hasn’t been passed in that “voluntary” form either.

> like chat control.

That has never been passed in any form.

> the opposite of how it works here in the US.

It appears that you have conveniently forgotten about FISA, EARN IT, CLOUD act, PATRIOT act, LAED, etc, etc.

Everything is a squircle (or whatever those continuously curved corners are called). I quite like it - but it definitely has Ives signature style.

There was a great post the other day showing low latency end to end using Nvidia models on a single GPU with pipecat

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46528045

Article: https://www.daily.co/blog/building-voice-agents-with-nvidia-...

> now you need Docker-in-Docker

Or you can just mount the socket and call docker from within docker.

Any kind of nested markup: styled content, additional animation layers, etc.

In the example they are just using an empty <RadioGroup.Indicator/> for the pip as it is easy to target with a classname, but you can put any content in there instead for e.g. card-style radios (as used for complex selections, like a subscription tier).

By using radix, the underlying behaviour is compliant and identical for each of those implementations - you just change the content. Radix isn't looking at it like an html radio element, it is looking at it as a completely unstyled unique item selector.

The pseudo-element styling approach limits you to 3 layers - the container, and the 2 pseudo elements, none of which you can provide with meaningful content besides plain text. The best you can do is provide a basic styles and set background image. For anything else you need to use labels to either wrap the radio (in which case you can access state via sibling selectors) and/or ref them with "for" (in which case you cant access the state).

It doesn’t.

It gives a very naive approach that doesn’t support any complex styling.

For that you need to wrap the input and additional styling elements in a ref’ed label.

The pseudo element solution alone is extremely limiting in its ability to be customised. For more complex customisation you will need to decorate with additional elements within a ref’ed label - and then you are effectively back to what radix does.

> Why would you want to do this?

Have you tried completely customising a radio button with CSS? Feel free to demonstrate a heavily customised radio button style where you don’t hide the native appearance.

That’s the way it appears, sure. But my question is how would you do it if you did care. What metric would there be you could measure if they have no choice but to use the product.

It is a question asking how you would do that if you cared. I.e how do you measure/quantify that annoyance as a metric when they are captive and have no choice to leave.

Traditionally you would be able to measure annoyance by reduced usage, but that’s not the case in a captive market, so how do you measure it?