Cool idea, though I was surprised by the level of fidelity loss in the fountain example. I would’ve expected that to be a good case scenario for noise cancellation so maybe it just needs some more time to iterate and improve on its level of “false positive” removal.

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

It’s worth noting that since FedSearch, Mastodon has actually natively implemented opt-in search on posts.

From the submission:

Not a rival, just an alternative

The realization that led us to develop PeerTube is that no one can rival YouTube or Twitch. You would need Google’s money, Amazon servers’ farms… Above all, you would need the greed to exploit millions of creators and videomakers, groom them into formatting their content to your needs, and feed them the crumbs of the wealth you gain by farming their audience into data livestock.

Monopolistic centralized video platforms can only be sustained by surveillance capitalism.

Even though we cannot pinpoint the exact budget Framasoft spent on PeerTube since 2017, our conservative estimate would be around 500 000 €

With these two perspectives it seems to be doing well, even if it can’t / won’t entirely displace the major players.

Actual summary:

• The article’s focus is: lump sum payment vs regular payment.
• Program had three groups: $20/month for 2 years, $500 lump sum, $20/month for 12 years.
• Lump sum allowed people to invest (e.g., to start a business) in a way that monthly payments didn’t.
• Monthly recipients often pooled funds in rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAs) to provide a lump-sum-like investment ability.
• Monthly recipients were “generally happier and reported better mental health” than lump sum recipients. Articles quotes speculation of cause to be stress related to investment vs the stability from having monthly payment.
• “The researchers found no evidence that any of the payments discouraged work or increased purchases of alcohol”.

While you’re free to circlejerk about how the article shows how great UBI is, that’s not really what it talks about.

As an aside, you can edit your submission title on lemmy/kbin/mbin.

Different sources claim different numbers, but the rate is considered by most sources to be low.

While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049

Typically no, the top two PCIE x16 slots are normally directly to the CPU, though when both are plugged in they will drop down to both being x8 connectivity.

Any PCIE x4 or X1 are off the chipset, as well as some IO, and any third or fourth x16 slots.

I think the relevant part of my original comment might’ve been misunderstood – I’ll edit to clarify that but I’m already aware that the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes are coming directly from the CPU (including when doing 2x8, if the board is designed in this way – the GPU-assigned lanes aren’t what I’m getting at here).

So yes, motherboards typically do implement more IO connectivity than can be used simultaneously, though they will try to avoid disabling USB ports or dropping their speed since regular customers will not understand why.

This doesn’t really address what I was getting at though. The OP’s point was basically “the reason there isn’t more USB is because there’s not enough bandwidth - here are the numbers”. The missing bandwidth they’re mentioning is correct, but the reality is that we already design boards with more ports than bandwidth - hence why it doesn’t seem like a great answer despite being a helpful addition to the discussion.

Isn’t this glossing over that (when allocating 16 PCIe lanes to a GPU as per your example), most of the remaining I/O connectivity comes from the chipset, not directly from the CPU itself?

There’ll still be bandwidth limitations, of course, as you’ll only be able to max out the bandwidth of the link (which in this case is 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes), but this implies that it’s not only okay but normal to implement designs that don’t support maximum theoretical bandwidth being used by all available ports and so we don’t need to allocate PCIe lanes <-> USB ports as stringently as your example calculations require.

Note to other readers (I assume OP already knows): PCIe lane bandwidth doubles/halves when going up/down one generation respectively. So 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes are equivalent in maximum bandwidth to 2x PCIe 5.0 lanes, or 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes.

edit: clarified what I meant about the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes.

Which is exactly how the real world works. Harm has to be identified to suggest solutions.

According to the submission, some harms have been identified, and some solutions have been suggested [that could reduce the same and similar harms from occurring to new and existing users] (but mostly it sounds like a “more work needs to be done” thing).

I imagine your perspective on the issues being discussed are different from those of the author. The helicopter parent analogy makes sense in a low-danger environment; I think what the author has suggested is that some people don’t feel like it’s a low-danger environment for them to be in (though I of course – not being the author or one such person – may be mistaken).

Edit: [clarified] because I realised it might seem contradictory if read literally.

I’m not understanding why blocking is ineffective…?

As I understand it, because it requires harm to be experienced before the negating action is taken.

A parallel might be having malware infect a system before it can be identified and removed (harm experienced -> future harm negated), vs proactively preventing malware from infecting the system in the first place (no harm experienced before negation).

Sure, but not much of that battery improvement is coming from migrating the APU’s process node. Moving from TSMC’s 7nm process to their 6nm process is only an incremental improvement; a “half-node” shrink rather than a full-node shrink like going from their 7nm to their 5nm.

The biggest battery improvement is (almost definitely) from having a 25% larger battery (40Whr -> 50Whr), with the APU and screen changes providing individually-smaller battery life improvements than that. Hence the APU change improving efficiency “a little”.

They were careful with how they phrased it, leaving the possibility of a refresh without a performance uplift still on the table (as speculated by media). It looks like the OLED model’s core performance will be only marginally better due to faster RAM, but that the APU itself is the same thing with a process node shrink (which improves efficiency a little).

See also: PCGamer article about an OLED version. They didn’t say “no”, and (just like with the previously linked article), media again speculated about a refresh happening.

It looks like they were consistent with what they were talking about with how it wasn’t simple to just drop in a new screen and leave everything else as-is, and used that opportunity to upgrade basically everything a little bit while they were tinkering with the screen upgrade.

It is, I’ve used that to prevent automatic removal of leading zeroes when reading the values of bytes.

Based on the article it seems like it’s just a matter of not having to spend the time (and mental overhead) of doing that for all required columns and never slipping up on it (now just set and forget).

Unless you’re also throwing money at YouTube premium (etc), isn’t this by definition unsustainable to do? So it’s not really a viable long-term strategy either.

Like don’t get me wrong, I don’t want all the tracking and stuff either, but somebody has to pay those server bills. If it’s not happening through straight cash then it’s going to be through increasingly aggressive monetization and cost-cutting strategies.

Fair enough. I suppose the terminology has evolved somewhat with time, and I can’t say I have much insight into a time period from before I was born.