• 1 Post
  • 443 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • You can run Linux on ARM. I do. And let’s not act like x86 wasn’t full of Microsoft-led efforts to undermine Linux. Anyone who’s had to disembowel their BIOS settings to the tune of “Your PC will be unsafe! Are you sure you want to run a LEGACY OS???” is familiar.

    I’m not a huge fan of the idea of buying CPU+GPU+RAM+mobo all as one unit. But like… that’s what tends to happen. Audio cards, SATA drives, network cards, these things all used to be separated until motherboards offered features to streamline things.

    The real problem is not form factor, but lack of competition. If there were 10-15 Qualcomms out there, offering different combos and a la carte options, there’d be no problem. It’s only because there are a tiny number of dominant players in the space that technical consolidation automatically translates to abusing consumers.


  • Well… modularity is kinda coming to an end anyway, regardless of supply chain moves. Apple’s M series has shown that op decoders and unified memory are the low-hanging fruit for overall system performance improvements, and that means less modularity.

    I think Valve sees the writing on the wall and is trying to get ahead of the game via FEX and the Steam Frame. Intel and AMD are pretty much stuck playing Nvidia’s game at this point, and Qualcomm has an incredible opportunity here. I’m still rooting for RISC-V, and I think it may end up being the long-term winner in like 10-15 years time.

    But either way, x86-style modularity is not long for this world. From a purely technical standpoint, I think that’s good. Adding the political and economic situation into the mix… well… fuck, we’re mega-fucked. About the only thing we have going for us as consumers is the fact that this is already headed towards a reset. So if we do gain some leverage, we can make a big change all at once. If we don’t though… things will get much worse.


  • Yeah, we need to be careful about distinguishing policy objectives from policy language.

    “Hold megacorps responsible for harmful algorithms” is a good policy objective.

    How we hold them responsible is an open question. Legal recourse is just one option. And it’s an option that risks collateral damage.

    But why are they able to profit from harmful products in the first place? Lack of meaningful competition.

    It really all comes back to the enshittification thesis. Unless we force these firms to open themselves up to competition, they have no reason to stop abusing their customers.

    “We’ll get sued” gives them a reason. “They’ll switch to a competitor’s service” also gives them a reason, and one they’re more likely to respect — if they see it as a real possibility.








  • The seal looks like this:

    Code completion is probably a gray area.

    Those models generally have much smaller context windows, so the energy concern isn’t quite as extreme.

    You could also reasonably make a claim that the model is legally in the clear as far as licensing, if the training data was entirely open source (non-attribution, non-share-alike, and commercial-allowed) licensed code. (A big “if”)

    All of that to say: I don’t think I would label code-completion-using anti-AI devs as hypocrites. I think the general sentiment is less “what the technology does” and more “who it does it to”. Code completion, for the most part, isn’t deskilling labor, or turning experts into chatbot-wrangling accountability sinks.

    Like, I don’t think the Luddites would’ve had a problem with an artisan using a knitting frame in their own home. They were too busy fighting against factories locking children inside for 18-hour shifts, getting maimed by the machines or dying trapped in a fire. It was never the technology itself, but the social order that was imposed through the technology.


  • Technically, BazaarVoice is the one preventing you from leaving a review.

    This is actually an example of technology working correctly. Web sites are able to delegate parts of their functionality to other services that are able to act independently. Your browser refuses to interact with BazaarVoice, but Petsmart continues to function.

    It’s also an example of markets working poorly. It’s great that companies can use a third party service to handle reviews, so we don’t have to constantly reinvent the wheel. It’s not great that companies like Petsmart are so big that they don’t have to care about who they delegate that job to. They can use a cheap-as-hell sketchy AI service that will grind their users into an algorithmic paste, and pocket the savings, with no worry that you might go elsewhere (what are you gonna do? shop at kind-hearted Bezos’ store instead?)


  • For a majority of men, probably, but not an overwhelming majority. Which still leaves a ton of people you could be compatible with.

    Don’t overthink it and try to be something you’re not. Just take your time, get to know people, be curious and honest. Stay true to yourself. Don’t apologize and adapt just because you assume you have to.

    You’re not trying to date everyone, just the right one. So why bother with what the rest think?

    You’ll find someone that “just works” with who you already are. When you do, your dynamic will come naturally as a result of your unique relationship, and it won’t be precisely the same as any timeshare sex model you might have tried to plan ahead on Lemmy.





  • only a tool

    “The essence of technology is by no means anything technological”

    Every tool contains within it a philosophy — a particular way of seeing the world.

    But especially digital technologies… they give the developer the ability to embed their values into the tools. Like, is DoorDash just a tool?