My gut reaction is that this won’t work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there’s a way to do that there’s a way to detect ads.
Of course, there’s always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they’re used; they’ve done similar before.
It might not necessarily be that the instances are stricter, it could also simply be that those instances are targeted more often by hate/trolls so interact with those instances more often. Admins are less likely to defederate from an instance they’ve never seen or heard of. I see a lot of obviously LGBT-related names in this list which likely get more hate than average.
That link is a 404 so I can’t tell what it says, but here’s a 1996 US act to enforce net neutrality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
And here’s a 2006 Tim Berners-Lee blog post about threats to net neutrality which specifically says net neutrality already exists, you really can’t get much more authoritive than that: https://web.archive.org/web/20060703142912/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
Obama may have enacted some legislation around between neutrality (again, your link 404s so I can’t tell what specifically you’re referring to) but it certainly wasn’t created under Obama.
The concept of net neutrality definitely existed long before Obama so it’s a bit questionable to say it was created under him. Did anything specific happen under him to enforce net neutrality more than it already was?
You’re definitely right about Trump though. It seems like he took every opportunity to screw over the US public in favour of corporate interests.
The name is an analogy, neural networks do not work in the same way as biological neurons. They were designed by computer scientists, not biologists.
RAM is so far removed from biological short term memory both in how it works and how it’s used that the comparison doesn’t even make sense. The only similarity is that they’re short term information/data stores, so it’s equally valid to compare them to a drawing in the sand of a beach.
This may have been true historically but I’m not sure it still holds up. I switched to Linux Mint as my regular OS a while back and the only driver issue I’ve had was that the installer didnt properly install my wifi card’s proprietary driver (which was working during live boot from usb), so I had to tether to my phone to download the driver through the driver manager. It even installed Nvidia drivers just fine.
It might still be an issue for more barebones or heavily customisable systems but I’m fairly certain nobody’s recommending people switch to Arch for their first Linux experience.
A keyboard without tactile feedback is objectively worse than a keyboard with tactile feedback, excluding other factors.
I’ve never had a physical keyboard lag out then send an entirely different keystroke because it thought I held a button, or send a single keystroke because I was typing too quickly.
I’ve never had to wait a moment for a physical keyboard to show up after selecting a text box.
I’ve never had the entire layout of a page shift to make room for a physical keyboard whenever I select or deselect a text box.
I’ve never had a physical keyboard prevent me from using the number pad and force me to use the full keyboard (or worse, vice versa) because of an improperly configured input box.
The way I see it there are exactly two real benefits to integrating a software keyboard into a touchscreen: reduced physical complexity (the entire device is essentially just one screen), and easier access to emoji. A touchscreen keyboard performs far worse as a keyboard. It’s a valid trade-off for a small mobile device, but it’s not objectively better.
That reminds me of an issue I had when I was installing Mint. I tried out a live boot first and everything seemed to work except there was no internet connection. Turns out my WiFi card needs a proprietary driver, but no big deal it installed easily enough just from the boot disk. Internet’s working, all looks good, so I go ahead and install Mint proper, remove the live boot usb, start the system, and savour that new Minty smell. But hang on, there’s no WiFi, I forgot to install the driver! Should be an easy enough fix though, it wasn’t hard last time.
So I go to install the driver and the first thing it says is that it needs the boot disk to get the driver. That makes total sense, can’t install something you don’t have! I plug in the usb again and now it should all be plain sailing, after all it’s just installing a driver that worked 20 minutes ago, right? Sadly no, that would be too easy; for some reason now it’s missing dependencies! Or something along those lines anyway, I forget exactly. But can’t it just install those from the boot disk? Well apparently not, it instead tries to connect to the internet to download them. This obviously fails since I don’t have a WiFi connection, which is why I’m installing the driver in the first place. All I get is a popup saying it can’t install some stuff because there’s no internet connection, fix that to get your internet connection. This is the point where face meets palm. I’m sure there’s some fiddly “proper” way to work around that but the thing is I’m incredibly lazy so I’ll just take the quick option instead. I plug in my phone and use a tethered connection. I run the install again and it finally goes through, at last the system is ready to use! It’s been mostly smooth sailing since then (though I did get annoyed enough at NTFS a couple of months ago that I just reformatted a data drive and wiped a ton of data I probably didn’t need).
Tl;dr: I had to tether to my phone for a minute. Traumatising!
It’s a bit of a non-sequitur though, the context was denying service to an ally not cutting off existing service to Crimea. It’s like if someone asked “Have you ever shaken a baby” and you respond “I have never kicked this baby!”. Sure, it’s good that you haven’t kicked a baby, but that’s just not the question.
They’ll use old comments either way, using an up-to-date dataset means using a dataset already tainted by LLM-generated content. Training a model on its own output is not great.
Incidentally this also makes Lemmy data less valuable, most of Lemmy’s popularity came after the rise of LLMs so there’s no significant untainted data from before LLMs.
Or you could say “and were shocked at the results”! It’s nice of you to highlight how people communicate differently even with a shared language, the world would be so boring if everyone was the same.
Your mistake there is thinking the stock market has to make sense. For instance, mass layoffs are a huge red flag that a company is failing and in any sane world would instantly tank the value. The stock market instead likes layoffs because it’s not at all interested in what the company actually does, so spending a little less in the short term to produce a lot less long term is a good thing.
You’re not wrong, but the first words are literally “Just over a decade ago”. It’s not a news article, it’s the story of the research in 2013 which revealed bitcoin isn’t anonymous.
Ctrl+Shift+V pastes without formatting.
What do you propose they do with that space? Adding literally any way to access it necessarily interferes with the roads around it and makes the entire project pointless.
Even ignoring that obvious problem, you can’t use it for housing since there’s nothing there and it’s surrounded by high-speed traffic. Can’t build shops or other amenities there since nobody stops and it’s surrounded by high-speed traffic. You definitely can’t put livestock there.
I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that language models are effective lie detectors, it’s very widely known that LLMs have no concept of truth and hallucinate constantly.
And that’s before we even get into inherent biases and moral judgements required for any form of truth detection.