Nice share! Mistral also shared data about one of its largest model (not the one that answer in LeChat, since that one is Medium, a smaller model, that I guess has smaller energetic requirements)
In total, the median prompt—one that falls in the middle of the range of energy demand—consumes 0.24 watt-hours of electricity, the equivalent of running a standard microwave for about one second. The company also provided average estimates for the water consumption and carbon emissions associated with a text prompt to Gemini.
There are zero downsides when mentally associating an energy hog with "1 second of use time of the device that is routinely used for minutes at a time."
With regard to sugar: when I started counting calories I discovered that the actual amounts of calories in certain foods were not what I intuitively assumed. Some foods turned out to be much less unhealthy than I thought. For example, I can eat almost three pints of ice cream a day and not gain weight (as long as I don't eat anything else). So sometimes instead of eating a normal dinner, I want to eat a whole pint of ice cream and I can do so guilt-free.
Likewise, I use both AI and a microwave, my energy use from AI in a day is apparently less than the energy I use to reheat a cup of tea, so the conclusion that I can use AI however much I want to without significantly affecting my environmental impact is the correct one.
Individually you’re spot on. Your AI use doesn’t matter. But, and this is where companies tend to leave off, when you take into account how many millions (or billions) of times something is done in a day (like AI prompts), then that’s when it genuinely matters.
To me, this is akin to companies trying to pass the blame to consumers when it’s the companies themselves who are the biggest climate offenders.
On a "respond to an individual query" level, yeah it's not that much. But prior to response the data center had to be constructed, the entire web had to be scraped, the models trained, the servers continually ran regardless of load. There's also way too many "hidden" queries across the web in general from companies trying to summarize every email or product.
All of that adds to the energy costs. This equivocation is meant to make people feel less bad about the energy impact of using AI, when so much of the cost is in building AI.
Furthermore, that's the median value--the one that falls right in the middle of the quantity of queries. There's a limit to how much less energy a query to the left of the median can use; there's a significantly higher runway to the right of the median for excess energy use. This also only accounted for text queries; images and video generation efforts are gonna use a lot more.
Your points are valid, but I think that building AI has benefits beyond simply enabling people to use that AI. It advances the state of the art and makes even more powerful AI possible. Still, it would be good to know about the amortized cost per query of building the AI in addition to the cost of running it.
You should probably not eat things because of how much calories they have or don't have, but because of how much of their nutrients you need, and how much they lack other, dangerous shit. Also eat slowly until you're full and no more. Also move a lot.
We shouldn't need calculators for this healthy lifestyle.
The reason for needing to know which foods are healthy is because... well, we forgot.
I'm not saying that ice cream is healthier than a normal dinner, just that if I really crave something sweet then the cost to my health of eating it periodically is actually quite low, whereas the cost of some other desserts (baked sweets are often the worst offenders) is relatively high. That means that a lot can be gained simply by replacing one dessert with a different, equally tasty dessert. Hence my ice cream advocacy.
I'll bet you're a stinking water drinker yourself. Probably a liter or two a day. And probably luxuriating in clean water when you could be using your body to recycling toilet water.
It does if you consider that they are actually building them to support power usage of datacenters. And that datacenters are used for a lot more than just AI training.
Yet they've never needed to commission power plants to dedicate power to these facilities. It's almost like there's some new, uniquely power-hungry demand that's driving this that's sprung up in the last 5 or so years...
huh? every data center i've been to has hundreds of megawatts of stand-by power generation which is regularly used to take up slack, because data center loads are peaky as hell. when facebook was building their first european datacenter in 2012 they were heavily criticised for their planned local power infrastructure, which was and still is diesel generators. the one being built in my area, which is a colo, has planned for over 700MW of local generation despite being built next to multiple hydro dams.
Cool, now how much power was consumed before even a single prompt was ran in training that model, and how much power is consumed on an ongoing basis adding new data to those AI models even without user prompts. Also how much power was consumed with each query before AI was shoved down our throats, and how many prompts does an average user make per day?
I did some quick math with metas llama model and the training cost was about a flight to Europe worth of energy, not a lot when you take in the amount of people that use it compared to the flight.
Whatever you're imagining as the impact, it's probably a lot less. AI is much closer to video games then things that are actually a problem for the environment like cars, planes, deep sea fishing, mining, etc. The impact is virtually zero if we had a proper grid based on renewable.
Volume of requests and power consumption requirements unrelated to requests made, at least I have to assume. Certainly doesn't help that google has forced me to make a request to their ai every time I run a standard search.
Seriously. I'd be somewhat less concerned about the impact if it was only voluntarily used. Instead, AI is compulsively shoved in every nook and cranny of digital product simply to justify its own existence.
The power requirement for training is ongoing, since mere days after Sam Altman released a very underehelming GPT-5, he begins hyping up the next one.
I also never saw a calculation that took into amount my VPS costs. The fckers scrape half the internet, warming up every server in the world connected to the internet. How much energy is that?
Because the training has diminishing returns, meaning the small improvements between (for example purposes) GPT 3 and 4 will need exponentially more power to have the same effect on GPT 5. In 2022 and 2023 OpenAI and DeepMind both predicted that reaching human accuracy could never be done, the latter concluding even with infinite power.
So in order to get as close as possible then in the future they will need to get as much power as possible. Academic papers outline it as the one true bottleneck.
And academia will work on that problem. It reminds me of intel processors "projected" to use kilowatts of energy, then smart people made other types of chips and they don't need 2000 watts.
Well, patents and what have you are a thing. I’m mostly thinking that I wouldn’t want e.g. Facebook to run any nuclear reactors or energy grids. That’s something I prefer the government does.
100's of Gigawatts is how much energy that is. Fuel is pretty damn energy dense.
A Boeing 777 might burn 45k Kg of fuel, at a density of 47Mj/kg. Which comes out to... 600 Megawatts
Or about 60 houses energy usage for a year in the U.S.
It's an asinine way to measure it to be fair, not only is it incredibly ambiguous, but almost no one has any reference as to how much energy that actually is.
I usually liken it to video games, ya. Is it worse that nothing? Sure, but that flight or road trip, etc, is a bigger concern. Not to mention even before AI we've had industrial usage of energy and water usage that isn't sustainable... almonds in CA alone are a bigger problem than AI, for instance.
Not that I'm pro-AI cause it's a huge headache from so many other perspectives, but the environmental argument isn't enough. Corpo greed is probably the biggest argument against it, imo.
A flight to Europe's worth of energy is a pretty asinine way to measure this. Is it not?
It's also not that small the number, being ~600 Megawatts of energy.
However, training cost is considerably less than prompting cost. Making your argument incredibly biased.
Similarly, the numbers released by Google seem artificially low, perhaps their TPUs are massively more efficient given they are ASICs. But they did not seem to disclose what model they are using for this measurement, It could be their smallest, least capable and most energy efficient model which would be disingenuous.
Now do training centers, since it's obvious they are never going to settle on a final model as they pursue the Grail of AGI. I could do the exact same comparison with my local computer and claim that running a prompt only uses X amount of watts because the GPU heats up for a few seconds and is done. But if I were to do some fine tuning or other training, that fan will stay on for hours. A lot different.
This feels like PR bullshit to make people feel like AI isn't all that bad. Assuming what they're releasing is even true. Not like cigarette, oil, or sugar companies ever lied or anything and put out false studies and misleading data.
However, there are still details that the company isn’t sharing in this report. One major question mark is the total number of queries that Gemini gets each day, which would allow estimates of the AI tool’s total energy demand.
Why wouldn't they release this. Even if each query uses minimal energy, but there are countless of them a day, it would mean a huge use of energy.
Which is probably what's happening and why they're not releasing that number.
the big thing to me is I want them to compare the same thing with web searches. so they want to use median then fine but median ai query to median google search.
The company has signed agreements to buy over 22 gigawatts of power from sources including solar, wind, geothermal, and advanced nuclear projects since 2010.
None of those advanced nuclear projects are yet actually delivering power, AFAIK. They're mostly in planning stages.
The above isn't all to run AI, of course. Nobody was thinking about datacenters just for AI training in 2010. But to be clear, there are 94 nuclear power plants in the US, and a rule of thumb is that they produce 1GW each. So Google is taking up the equivalent of roughly one quarter of the entire US nuclear power industry, but doing it with solar/wind/geothermal that could be used to drop our fossil fuel dependence elsewhere.
How much of that is used to run AI isn't clear here, but we know it has to be a lot.
None of those advanced nuclear projects are yet actually delivering power, AFAIK.
...and they won't be for at least 5-10 years. In the meantime they'll just use public infrastructure and then when their generation plans fall through they'll just keep doing that.
Psicologia REM di Michael Raduga analizza l’uso dei sogni lucidi come strumento scientifico per la crescita personale e la risoluzione dei problemi. Questa guida ti accompagna attraverso la teoria delle connessioni neurali e l’applicazione pratica per superare traumi e blocchi emotivi. viaggio nei sogni lucidi con Psicologia REM: il metodo di Michael Raduga per trasformare la mente e migliorare la vita. Tradotto in italiano da Michele Bizzarri, trainer della Phase School.
Perché leggere Psicologia Rem: la guida ai sogni lucidi di Michael Raduga
E se i sogni lucidi potessero trasformare la tua vita?
Quante volte ci svegliamo da un sogno pensando che fosse talmente reale da lasciare in noi emozioni forti, come gioia, paura o nostalgia? E se potessimo entrare volontariamente in quel mondo e utilizzarlo come strumento di crescita personale? Non parliamo di fantasia o di semplici tecniche di rilassamento, ma di un metodo concreto che affonda le sue radici nella psicologia del sonno e nello studio della fase REM. Il libro Psicologia Rem ci invita a considerare i sogni lucidi come un vero e proprio laboratorio interiore, dove è possibile sperimentare nuove connessioni, affrontare blocchi emotivi, superare traumi e persino esercitare abilità da trasferire nella vita quotidiana. È un approccio pratico e innovativo, pensato per chi vuole trasformare le notti in un’opportunità di cambiamento.
Chi è Michael Raduga e l’efficacia del suo metodo
Psicologia Rem non è solo un manuale, ma il risultato di anni di ricerca coordinata da Michael Raduga, fondatore e CEO di REMspace Inc., del Phase Research Center e della Phase School (di cui Michele Bizzarri è trainer in Italia). Con oltre vent’anni di esperienza nello studio di sogni lucidi, esperienze extracorporee (OBE) e paralisi del sonno, Raduga è una delle figure di riferimento a livello mondiale. È autore di circa 15 libri tradotti in oltre dieci lingue, tra cui il celebre The Phase, considerato una guida pratica fondamentale per imparare a indurre la lucidità onirica e vivere esperienze fuori dal corpo.
Ma Psicologia Rem non è opera di un solo autore. È un lavoro corale a cui hanno contribuito diversi ricercatori e divulgatori del Phase Research Center:
Zhanna Zhunusova, “REM-psychologist”, specializzata nello studio del sonno REM e negli stati di coscienza durante i sogni, formatrice e tutor nel campo dei sogni lucidi;
Svetlana Dementieva, ricercatrice e divulgatrice nel settore dell’oniriologia;
Elena Puntus, attiva nella divulgazione scientifica e parte integrante del team internazionale legato a Raduga;
Dmitry Stolbov, collaboratore diretto di Raduga e co-autore del libro, impegnato nella ricerca e nello sviluppo delle metodologie pratiche;
Mikhail Baryshnikov, esperto e divulgatore dei sogni lucidi, membro stabile del gruppo di ricerca.
Il contributo di più voci rende il testo non solo scientificamente solido, ma anche più completo e ricco, unendo teoria, sperimentazione pratica e divulgazione.
L’impegno di Raduga e del suo team non si limita alla teoria. A testimonianza della sua dedizione allo studio pratico dei sogni lucidi, di recente è stata messa in commercio LucidMe, una mascherina tecnologica progettata per aiutare gli utenti a raggiungere la lucidità onirica. Grazie all’uso dell’intelligenza artificiale, il dispositivo monitora la fase REM del sonno e invia segnali luminosi o vibrazioni, guidando chi lo indossa a diventare consapevole di stare sognando. Questa innovazione dimostra come Raduga stia lavorando per rendere le tecniche dei sogni lucidi ancora più accessibili e scientificamente supportate.
Scoprire il potere dei sogni lucidi
Conoscere i concetti principali di Psicologia Rem significa scoprire perché questo libro è un’opera unica nel suo genere, capace di distinguersi tra tutti i testi dedicati al sonno e ai sogni. Approfondiremo:
la teoria alla base del metodo, che mette in relazione emozioni, eventi e connessioni neurali;
le applicazioni pratiche dei sogni lucidi per superare traumi, blocchi e difficoltà personali;
i contenuti principali del libro, suddivisi tra spiegazioni teoriche, casi concreti e tecniche per indurre la lucidità onirica e le esperienze fuori dal corpo;
i punti di forza e i possibili limiti, con attenzione all’efficacia per chi cerca strumenti immediatamente utilizzabili.
I tuoi sogni possono diventare un terreno fertile per la trasformazione interiore e la crescita personale. Psicologia Rem è una guida pratica e accessibile, capace di aprire nuove prospettive sul rapporto tra mente, emozioni e sonno REM.
L’innovazione di Michael Raduga: la teoria che unisce psicologia e sonno REM
Emozioni e connessioni neurali: la teoria dietro Psicologia Rem
Uno dei punti di partenza di Psicologia Rem è l’idea che ogni esperienza della nostra vita lasci una traccia nel cervello sotto forma di connessione neurale. Quando un evento è accompagnato da una forte emozione – che sia positiva o negativa – quella connessione si consolida e diventa parte del nostro modo di reagire al mondo. Ecco perché certi traumi o blocchi emotivi continuano a condizionare i nostri comportamenti anche a distanza di anni: non è questione di volontà, ma di automatismi registrati a livello neurologico. La proposta di Michael Raduga e del suo team è tanto semplice quanto rivoluzionaria: se queste connessioni si sono formate a partire da un’esperienza reale e carica di emozione, allora possono essere modificate o sostituite attraverso un’altra esperienza altrettanto vivida e significativa. Ed è qui che entrano in gioco i sogni lucidi e le esperienze extracorporee legate al sonno REM.
Sogni lucidi vs visualizzazione: perché il metodo di Raduga è più efficace
Molti approcci di crescita personale e tecniche di auto-aiuto si basano sulla visualizzazione: immaginare mentalmente un obiettivo, rivivere un ricordo o proiettare se stessi in una situazione positiva. Tuttavia, come sottolinea Raduga, la visualizzazione resta un processo “debole”, perché manca della forza sensoriale e della componente emozionale che caratterizzano le esperienze reali. Un sogno lucido, invece, viene percepito dal cervello come un evento autentico. Le sensazioni tattili, visive e uditive sono così realistiche da ingannare completamente la mente, attivando gli stessi circuiti neuronali che si attiverebbero in una situazione di veglia. Per questo motivo, utilizzare i sogni lucidi come strumento terapeutico ha un potenziale molto più forte: il cervello registra l’esperienza come reale e la connessione neurale viene modificata in profondità.
Sogni lucidi come terapia: affrontare paure e traumi
Qui sta l’innovazione principale di Psicologia Rem: i sogni non vengono trattati come semplici proiezioni dell’inconscio o come fenomeni da interpretare, ma come un vero e proprio laboratorio psicologico personale. Nello stato di sogno lucido è possibile affrontare direttamente paure e traumi, vivere esperienze correttive, immaginare nuove soluzioni e persino esercitare abilità che hanno effetti misurabili nella vita di tutti i giorni. Raduga e i coautori propongono quindi una sorta di “psicoterapia del sonno REM”, un approccio pratico che sfrutta il potere trasformativo delle esperienze extracorporee e dei sogni lucidi per lavorare su sé stessi. Non si tratta solo di esplorazione interiore o di curiosità onirica, ma di un metodo strutturato che combina neuroscienza, psicologia e pratiche di induzione onirica. In questo senso, il libro si distingue da molte altre guide perché mostra come i sogni lucidi possano diventare strumenti concreti di cambiamento personale, aprendo nuove possibilità nel campo della psicologia applicata e della crescita individuale.
Sogni lucidi e viaggi astrali: la guida pratica di Psicologia Rem
La neuroplasticità onirica: la teoria del metodo
La prima sezione di Psicologia Rem si concentra sulla spiegazione teorica del metodo. Qui Raduga e i coautori introducono il concetto di connessioni neurali generate da emozioni ed esperienze, e spiegano come queste diventino i “programmi” che guidano le nostre reazioni quotidiane. Quando un evento traumatico o molto intenso viene registrato nel cervello, tende a consolidarsi e a ripetersi come schema mentale, influenzando il modo in cui affrontiamo nuove situazioni. L’idea centrale è che queste connessioni non sono immutabili: possono essere riscritte attraverso esperienze altrettanto vivide. Ed è proprio durante la fase REM che la mente ha la possibilità di creare scenari così realistici da competere con la veglia. Questa sezione getta quindi le basi scientifiche e psicologiche che sostengono l’intero libro, presentando la psicologia del sonno REM come un campo ancora in evoluzione, ma con enormi potenzialità pratiche.
Sognare per crescere: esempi pratici e applicazioni
Nella seconda parte il testo diventa più operativo: non ci si limita alla teoria, ma vengono presentati esempi reali di applicazione del metodo. Il lettore scopre come i sogni lucidi possano essere utilizzati per affrontare paure specifiche (come il parlare in pubblico o la paura di volare), per elaborare traumi passati o per sbloccarsi in ambiti di vita dove prevale l’insicurezza. Raduga e i coautori illustrano diversi scenari pratici in cui il sogno lucido viene vissuto come una “simulazione reale”, capace di produrre un cambiamento immediato nella percezione del problema. L’aspetto interessante è che il libro non parla di risultati miracolosi, ma propone un metodo graduale, applicabile da chiunque, che unisce sperimentazione personale e comprensione dei meccanismi psicologici. Questa parte è forse la più coinvolgente per il lettore, perché dimostra che i sogni lucidi non sono solo un fenomeno affascinante, ma un vero strumento di trasformazione personale.
Tecniche per sogni lucidi e viaggi astrali: una panoramica
La terza parte del libro è dedicata alle tecniche per indurre sogni lucidi e esperienze fuori dal corpo (OBE). Anche se il tema non viene trattato in modo approfondito come in altri testi di Raduga, il lettore trova comunque una panoramica utile delle principali strategie per raggiungere la lucidità onirica. Vengono spiegati approcci pratici da sperimentare durante il risveglio o nel passaggio tra veglia e sonno, insieme a consigli per mantenere la lucidità una volta entrati nello scenario onirico. Questa sezione funge anche da ponte con il resto delle opere di Raduga: chi desidera padroneggiare davvero le tecniche troverà in Psicologia Rem un’introduzione preziosa, che può essere integrata con altri manuali e risorse più specifiche. Per esempio, potresti leggere La Fase di Michael Raduga, scaricando l’eBook dal link presente nel nostro articolo recensione. Oppure puoi cercare altri manuali su sogni lucidi e viaggi astrali.
Psicologia Rem: pro e contro del metodo di Raduga
I punti di forza di Psicologia Rem: chiarezza e approccio pratico
Uno degli aspetti più apprezzabili di Psicologia Rem è la sua chiarezza espositiva. Nonostante affronti argomenti complessi come la neuroplasticità, la fase REM e le dinamiche delle esperienze extracorporee, il libro riesce a mantenere un linguaggio semplice e accessibile, adatto anche a chi si avvicina per la prima volta a questi temi. Un altro punto di forza è la forte impronta pratica: non si tratta di un testo puramente teorico o accademico, ma di una guida che invita subito alla sperimentazione personale. Il lettore non rimane con concetti astratti, ma trova strumenti concreti da provare, che spaziano dalle tecniche di induzione dei sogni lucidi a esercizi per applicare il metodo nella vita di tutti i giorni. Inoltre, il libro ha il merito di presentare una prospettiva innovativa: i sogni lucidi non vengono descritti solo come curiosità oniriche o come esperienze da raccontare, ma come un vero strumento psicologico per la crescita personale e la trasformazione interiore. Questa visione concreta e scientifica rende Psicologia Rem un testo originale, diverso dai classici manuali di auto-aiuto.
Possibili limiti del libro e suggerimenti per la lettura
Per offrire una recensione equilibrata, è giusto menzionare anche qualche possibile limite. Alcuni lettori potrebbero trovare la parte dedicata alle tecniche di induzione un po’ troppo sintetica. Chi cerca una guida dettagliata su come ottenere sogni lucidi e viaggi astrali potrebbe dover integrare la lettura con altri testi di Raduga, come La Fase, o con risorse più specifiche. Un altro possibile limite è che, pur essendo molto stimolante, il metodo richiede costanza e impegno personale: non basta leggere il libro, bisogna mettersi in gioco e sperimentare. Per chi cerca soluzioni rapide e senza sforzo, Psicologia Remcome qualsiasi altro manuale sui sogni lucidi, potrebbe risultare impegnativo. Tuttavia, proprio questi aspetti rafforzano la credibilità del testo: non promette scorciatoie miracolose, ma offre strumenti reali, che danno risultati a chi è disposto a provare con serietà. E per chi desidera approfondire, il libro si inserisce in un percorso più ampio di studio e pratica dei sogni lucidi, come, ad esempio, i corsi organizzati da Michele Bizzarri, trainer italiano della Phase School.
Psicologia Rem: opinione e valutazione finale
Perché Psicologia Rem è un libro da leggere
Psicologia Rem è molto più di un libro sui sogni lucidi: è una guida pratica alla trasformazione personale che unisce psicologia del sonno, neuroscienze e sperimentazione onirica. Grazie al lavoro di Michael Raduga e del suo team, il lettore scopre come i sogni lucidi possano diventare strumenti per affrontare paure, superare traumi e costruire nuove risorse interiori. La forza di questo testo sta nella sua capacità di rendere accessibili concetti complessi, trasformandoli in un metodo applicabile nella vita quotidiana.
A chi consiglio Psicologia Rem
Questo libro è adatto a chiunque voglia comprendere il mondo dei sogni lucidi non solo come esperienza affascinante, ma come opportunità di crescita. È perfetto per chi si avvicina per la prima volta al tema, grazie al linguaggio chiaro e agli esempi pratici, ma anche per chi ha già fatto esperienze fuori dal corpo (OBE) e desidera scoprire nuove applicazioni psicologiche. Chi soffre di ansia, blocchi interiori o vuole allenare la propria mente troverà in Psicologia Rem un alleato prezioso.
Credo che i sogni lucidi, un giorno, saranno uno strumento comune per la crescita personale e la risoluzione dei problemi. Non lo sono ancora, ma questo libro ti dà l’opportunità di iniziare a scoprirli e a sfruttarne il potere.
With AI disrupting employment, millions could face the loss of purpose, identity and social belonging.
The psychological toll of sudden AI-driven unemployment remains largely unaddressed.
If we want AI to be remembered as a tool for human flourishing, rather than mass alienation, we must start planning, not just for the jobs AI will create – but for the dreams it might erase.
With AI disrupting employment, millions could face the loss of purpose, identity and social belonging.
The psychological toll of sudden AI-driven unemployment remains largely unaddressed.
If we want AI to be remembered as a tool for human flourishing, rather than mass alienation, we must start planning, not just for the jobs AI will create – but for the dreams it might erase.
It is explicitly intended to be, you only have to listen to them talk about it for that to be abundantly clear. Fuck, even ask an AI themselves and they'll tell you about the dangers of how it's being used. The only people saying it's not are the utopian dreamers who are expecting it to be something it's currently not and likely has no hope of ever being. This is not a utopia and the people creating these technologies are not utopians in the slightest, they are mercenary capitalists and they will instantly grind you into a paste without even a shred of remorse or even an acknowledgement that they've done so, if it helps them get their next dollar. Some of them only think about you in the abstract. Most of them don't think of you at all.
In the mid-1950s, IBM approached Jacques Perret, a Classics professor at the Sorbonne, with a question. They were about to sell a new kind of computer in France, the Model 650. What, they asked, should it be called? Not the model itself, but rather the whole class of device it represented. An obvious option was calculateur, the literal French translation of ‘computer’. But IBM wanted something that conveyed more than arithmetic. ‘Dear Sir,’ Perret replied,
How about ordinateur? It is a correctly formed word, which is even found in Littré [the standard 19th-century French dictionary] as an adjective designating God who brings order to the world. A word of this kind has the advantage of easily supplying a verb, ordiner … (My translation.)
Besides, Perret added, the implicitly feminine connotation already present in IBM’s marketing materials could carry over to the new term:
Re-reading the brochures you gave me, I see that several of your devices are designated by female agent names (trieuse, tabulatrice). Ordinatrice would be perfectly possible … My preference would be to go for l’ordinatrice electronique.
The female reference was not entirely inappropriate. Up until the mid-20th century, the term ‘computer’ meant an office clerk, usually a woman, performing calculations by hand, or with the help of a mechanical device. IBM’s new machine, however, was intended for general information-processing. The masculine and godlike version prevailed. The term soon entered common language. Every computer in France became known as an ordinateur.
In the mid-1950s, IBM approached Jacques Perret, a Classics professor at the Sorbonne, with a question. They were about to sell a new kind of computer in France, the Model 650. What, they asked, should it be called? Not the model itself, but rather the whole class of device it represented. An obvious option was calculateur, the literal French translation of ‘computer’. But IBM wanted something that conveyed more than arithmetic. ‘Dear Sir,’ Perret replied,
How about ordinateur? It is a correctly formed word, which is even found in Littré [the standard 19th-century French dictionary] as an adjective designating God who brings order to the world. A word of this kind has the advantage of easily supplying a verb, ordiner … (My translation.)
Besides, Perret added, the implicitly feminine connotation already present in IBM’s marketing materials could carry over to the new term:
Re-reading the brochures you gave me, I see that several of your devices are designated by female agent names (trieuse, tabulatrice). Ordinatrice would be perfectly possible … My preference would be to go for l’ordinatrice electronique.
The female reference was not entirely inappropriate. Up until the mid-20th century, the term ‘computer’ meant an office clerk, usually a woman, performing calculations by hand, or with the help of a mechanical device. IBM’s new machine, however, was intended for general information-processing. The masculine and godlike version prevailed. The term soon entered common language. Every computer in France became known as an ordinateur.
Because of this transformation, our sense of who we are is assembled in a strange and tangled fashion. The machinery of ordinalisation attends carefully to individuals rather than coarse classes or groups. By doing so, it appears to liberate people from the constraints of social affiliations and to judge them for their distinctive qualities and contributions. It promises incorporation for the excluded, recognition for the creative, and just rewards for the entrepreneurial. And yet this emancipatory promise is delivered through systems that classify, sort and, above all, rank people with ever-greater precision and on a previously unimaginable scale. The resulting social order is a sort of paradox, characterised by constant tensions between personal freedom and social control, between the subjective elan of inner authenticity and the objective forces of external authentication. It gives rise to a certain way of being, a new kind of self, whose experiences are defined by the push for personal autonomy and the pull of platform dependency.
Sounds like their point is we were emancipated from being defined by our social connections and place in society. This is being done by data identifying our intrinsic properties that exist without our social connections.
This is in line with the west’s (North American) ever increasing individualism. A trend that many suggest has gone too far, and is harming individuals, along with the rest of society.
“Don’t just go with the flow in your community and family! Each and everyone of you have the potential for more! Break free! Buy our product, and show everyone who you really are!”
Current and former TikTok employees have raised concerns internally about how the app’s popular algorithm could hurt young users’ mental health, a newly unsealed video presented as evidence in a North Carolina lawsuit against the company shows.
‘You never want to leave:’ TikTok employees raise concerns about the app’s impact on teens in newly unsealed video
Current and former TikTok employees have raised concerns internally about how the app’s popular algorithm could hurt young users’ mental health, a newly unsealed video presented as evidence in a North Carolina lawsuit against the company shows.
Look at all us old fogeys glued to our phones. Imagine being raised off staring at phones and social media.
What's scary is the new regime has a vested interest in poisoning our kids in this very manner, just like they are doing in our schools and libraries. It's up to the parents to save the next generations, because they will face challenges that i don't think any of us can really truly imagine at this point.
Seriously scared about my kids getting to be old enough to want social media. It's already so tough trying to explain why I don't want them watching certain YouTubers.
I honestly feel like I'm sounding crazy talking to them about all the clues that these aren't people that they should be watching...personalities putting out content that's objectively brain rot for kids, and obsessed with material wealth, and acting like an Influencer lifestyle is attainable and even desirable.
Teaching them about logical fallacies and how to spot them may be the best defense against these types of personalities imo. Many influencers that you’re concerned about try to prey upon these fallacies, so teaching your kids to spot them can help them to realize those people are full of shit.
Curating their content a bit to include more people you want them to be like can help as well, at least then they can have good people to look up to.
If your kids think you have their best interests in mind, I feel they’re less likely to push back and more likely to respect the boundaries you put down.
Oh for sure. One of my kids favorite personalities is Mark Rober, who I also mostly approve of. It's just tough when he does collabs with people who I think are shallow and devoid of content, like Unspeakable. He strikes me as the type of channel who would be a stepping stone to mens rights/incel and then Joe Rogan.
Mark Rober sold out to a content company a couple of years ago, that's why. Before that he used to be an actually good engineering channel. These days it is mostly just sponsored slop.
I've been building things for as long as I can remember. It all started when my dad exposed me to plastic model building and soldering when I was around 4 years old.
I have four daughters that I never let on social media. They are intelligent, bright, and can use technology well. Your kids are not missing anything by not being on social media. If it is corporate ran it is cancer period.
A company I worked for moderated for them. They got extra breaks and also a wellness/quite room, because apparently they needed it from all the batshit insane stuff they had to look at.
With AI disrupting employment, millions could face the loss of purpose, identity and social belonging.
The psychological toll of sudden AI-driven unemployment remains largely unaddressed.
If we want AI to be remembered as a tool for human flourishing, rather than mass alienation, we must start planning, not just for the jobs AI will create – but for the dreams it might erase.
Proton existed long before the Steam Deck, and before that as DXVK.
This is a battle between closed proprietary OS and open source. Proton enables translating DirectX/Windows APIs not only to Vulkan/Linux x86, but even to ARM and BSD.
Do you know what I did last week thanks to Proton? Installed EndeavourOS on my freshly purchased laptop, installed steam, and installed a bunch of Windows games. Then I played them. At no point did I wonder whether they would run.
Now, you may think being able to do that isn't something that is going to get more people using desktop Linux (or that it hasn't already done so), but as much as I'd love to agree with you, then we'd both be wrong.
I say this as someone who used to care about convincing other people to use Linux. (Before shifting into "you can lead a horse to water..." mode, and now I just don't give a shit.)
However, what I gained from that experience is this: In twenty years of being Linux-only on my personal desktop, the number of times I have read the phrase, "I'd love to use Linux, except for [some statement about a game or games]" is astronomical.
Now, is Proton going to make desktop Linux the best choice for everyone? Clearly not, duh. But it is remarkably disingenuous to suggest that it's not had a massive benefit to the Linux community and ecosystem as a whole, including, and dare I say especially, desktop Linux. It is flat out impossible to imagine that a substantial portion of current and future Linux users aren't people for whom Proton solved what they considered to be a substantial barrier to usage.
The Bazzite console I built which is connected to my living room TV stands in contradiction. The Linux-driven gaming PC that’s sitting on my desk is confirmation.
Windows 11 and the forced obsolescence of hardware is leaving a sour aftertaste, and at this point a game maker essentially has to choose to not support Linux via Proton.
You might not be able to run Battlefield or CoD, but Marvel Rivals and Overwatch run particularly well, if not better on Linux.
And with Microsoft entering the handheld market, this is very much a question of Linux vs Windows for gaming.
Yeah, the big reason to do that was so you could attach an EGPU which wasn’t supported natively. Now it is, though, so the need for that mostly disappeared. Plus, macOS is now so reliant on proprietary interval hardware like the T2 chip, then I won’t run on anything, but Apple hardware.
eGPUs got pretty good support on Intel Macs in the years leading up to Apple Silicon. And that transition started 5+ years ago. And now all Apple Silicon Macs have no eGPU support.
I find it weird that you cite eGPU support since hackintoshes almost always have PCI slots. And the eGPU support still comes from Apple (at the driver level) even on a hackintosh. AFAIK.
I did a little digging. It seems like mainline Apple hardware with Thunderbolt 2 had limited eGPU support because of bandwidth constraints. Thunderbolt 3 had full support.
eGPUs? I ran a Hackintosh because Apple didn't sell hardware in the configuration I wanted. Less to do with GPUs and more to do with the lack of hard drive slots or PCIe slots. I had a nice workflow with some pieces of shareware that slowly lost support with each major OS update and every major update also came with less customizing for Finder. By the time they switched to their own ARM chips, I was ready to drop it. Apple's idea of game support was just mobile shit anyway. They should have become partnered with Valve on Proton.
I don’t understand this argument. It makes no sense. Just because a piece of software is included for free with an Apple computer doesn’t mean you’re paying for it. It’s like you see the word “free” and just decide it means something different than what it really means.
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as "free" does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you're handed a proprietary piece of technology for "free", but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for... it's not free. It's complementary, but it's not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
To be extremely pedantic, there's licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware
That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.
Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.
Any windows license always cost money.
That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.
It's paid for as a part of the hardware and not listed separately on the receipts. All those 3rd party components in the OS are not free and has to be paid for. That comes from the hardware sale.
You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardware # you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. # to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, macOS Catalina, macOS Mojave, or macOS High Sierra (“Mac Computer”) that you own or control # and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.
You're only allowed to use Mac OS and software for it on a Mac computer, which you have to pay for.
The license additionally calls out included 3rd party licensed fonts which which you can't use unrestricted without a specific license from the market of that font
You have to agree to that same license agreement even if you download macOS from Apple’s website without paying for it. So I still don’t see what in the world you’re talking about except for twisting yourself into pretzels to make sense of your nonsense argument.
You're not allowed to use it after downloading it for free unless you use it on Apple hardware that it paid for. If you don't have Apple hardware you only have a file you're not allowed to use. Paying for Apple hardware pays for the license permitting you to use it.
That's like saying that using a fixed cost subscription service is free because you're not paying at the time that you access it.
That doesn’t mean macOS costs money. Just the Apple hardware. It’s really weird that you can’t tell the difference between a piece of software and a piece of hardware. What’s worse as you think I have the same trouble you do.
macOS is free. Just because Apple hardware isn’t also free doesn’t mean macOS isn’t free.
The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.
You keep repeating this argument of "show me where I can possibly pay for it" presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.
What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly
Apple doesn't need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.
Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.
Most video codecs such as H.264, H265/HEVC, MPEG-2, MPEG-4... requires the manufacturer to pay a license fee. The fees are then added to the final product, but the actual codec fees are usually unknown to the end user.
The first link is evidence that video codecs cost money and, as per that source:
Most video codecs such as H.264, H265/HEVC, MPEG-2, MPEG-4… requires the manufacturer to pay a license fee. The fees are then added to the final product, but the actual codec fees are usually unknown to the end user.
This was in response to the earlier discussion about third party libraries costing money.
It still doesn’t make any sense to me. Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t? Or is it because I keep poking holes in your logic?
You misinterpreted what I said in that initial comment, asked if I was hallucinating, and when I clarified this misinterpretation, you proceeded to skip over anything I had said beyond the first link.
You are not giving any valid counter arguments to what I said in my original comment (in fact detracting from the original point of this whole thread by speculating you hurt my feelings?), this is why I believe you are acting in bad faith.
Floo: Do you think I’m acting in bad faith because I acknowledge a fact, and you won’t?
Ah, yes. Projection.
It’s amusing that you’re accusing me of what you’re doing.
It's extremely amusing that you're accusing others of accusing you of doing what they're doing, while in fact you're accusing others of doing what you're doing.
is not a very convincing argument. I’m sorry you want to turn this into some sort of psychological mind game. But the fact remains that macOS is free. I’m sorry you struggle so much to accept that.
And if you equate “stating facts” with “acting in bad faith”, then that’s your own problem.
The arguments were provided by others, I simply stated what I observed. You are right that Apple doesn't make you pay for macOS separately, but in my opinion, it's like saying that Apple processors are free because you don't pay for them when you buy a Macbook. You also don't pay for Windows separately when you buy a Windows laptop, you know, but the manufacturer is paying for Windows which is added to the overall cost of the laptop.
MacOS developers have an income, and where does that income come from?
You have to pay money to buy the computer you used to run Linux. So, by your logic, Linux isn’t free either. You see how this argument is nonsense.
And you can speculate all you like about how Apple makes money to pay for its developers. I don’t know, they make this other thing called the iPhone that seems pretty popular. I bet that makes them a lot of money.
Therefore, Google cannot close Android's source code, and force manufacturers to pay for it.
When you buy an Android phone, however, there are some closed-sourced components installed on them: Google Play Services, YouTube, ..., which Google can profit from.
So Google does profit from Android. It's free, but Google definitely generates enough to develop Android.
Apple's situation is different from Google's. It is the sole maker of devices that run macOS, and macOS is close-sourced. It can add a price to each macOS device sold for macOS development. It would be illogical for Apple not to do this, and use the profit brought by the sale of other devices. Therefore, there's a high probability you're also paying for macOS when buying a Mac device.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free (which it is). This reasoning is so ridiculous. And it doesn’t get any less ridiculous them or you keep repeating it. You’re wasting your time arguing with an objective fact: macOS is free.
Unless Apple starts charging for it, there is literally nothing else that will change that. I’m sorry you just can’t accept that.
Are our definitions of "free" not the same? The way I think of "free" implies that, if the cost of a CPU/RAM/operating system is added to the overall cost of a device, that CPU/RAM/operating system is not free. You are paying for it.
Just because Linux is open source doesn’t magically mean macOS isn’t free
You're right, because you didn't read my comment carefully. I wrote, clearly, that Linux is funded. That's where the money for its development comes from.
Linux's license means Google can't close Android's source and make manufacturers pay for it, it has other ways to profit from Android.
Windows is paid.
Every major operating system has some way to obtain money for its development. The most logical thing for Apple is to add macOS's cost to the price of Mac devices. Given this definition of not-free, the probability of macOS not being free is higher.
I have written four comments here regarding this (five when I send this one). How many have you written? I won't argue over this any further. It's not worth the time, for both of us.
AFAIK manufacturers don't have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware)
So yeah idk what you are smoking or if you get high just by being the most pedantic person in the lemmyverse
AFAIK manufacturers don't have to pay for Linux And if MacOS is really free you would be able to manufacture and sell devices using it but there is not a single one
That’s not what free means here. “Free“ as in costs no money for the user. Can download and install it without having to pay for it. Because it is free. You’re using the word “free” to means something obviously different than what I’m talking about.
MacOS is free just like Windows is free (the license is included in your purchase of the hardware). Except windows isn’t free. It cost is enumerated on the invoice. macOS is not. Because it is free.
So yeah idk
Obviously, you don’t know because you keep saying things that are very, obviously not true. Are you feeling OK?
What? No. Your "payment" to Apple continues as you use OSX.
You don't need to pay "Linux" anything (though you can donate to distros and app devs if you're a sweetie).
You don't even need to pay for a computer. You can steal one or find one in the garbage. Apple hates recycling hardware, that's why they sue 3rd party Apple repair and maintenance shops. I used OSX for a decade. They were cool for a little while, being somewhat novel for adopting a UNIX-like as their backbone, but that goodwill and logic is long dead.
I hate them as much as I hate Microsoft, perhaps even more, because not only have they abandoned the ideals they marketed in the 00's, they are draconian in their enforcement of their control. Their planned obsolescence is absolutely criminal. They embezzle tens of billions of dollars overseas to avoid taxation. And Tim Cook now blows Donald Trump for breakfast.
Do you also think the engine that comes with your car is free because the manufacturer doesn't sell it as a separate item and it's not listed on the receipt?
Edit: His answer proves he's just a troll. Weird thing to troll about though but I don't judge what someone gets off to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.
The entire forum has already proved the point that you're wrong. You're incapable of understanding that you lost. An economics teacher might be able to get it into your head.
The OS is a component of the whole product by Apple’s own reporting and marketing material. If you bought a Macbook directly from Apple and it came without MacOS preinstalled, would you consider that a fulfilled transaction?
Alright Theseus, how many components of a macbook need to be removed until you’re no longer buying a macbook? Would you be satisfied receiving an empty box since the monitor, CPU, motherboard etc. are not individually itemised on your receipt for a MacBook?
By the way, when you buy pretty much any PC laptop, I’ve ever seen, the cost of the Windows license is definitely itemized on the invoice and receipt. Since macOS has no cost and is free, that’s why it’s not listed.
Of course, all of those other components you listed are itemized on an Apple invoice, especially if you have to pay extra for upgrades.
I own and use Apple products. That’s how I know you’re talking bollocks. You also realised at some point that you were talking bollocks, which is why you’re now pivoting to absolutely absurd responses to pretend this is some elaborate troll attempt.
Your argument hinges on the fact that it doesn’t appear on your receipt. Neither do any of the components of my M1 Macbook Pro other than the optional extras that I selected. By your logic I only paid for the itemised extras.
You’re arguing that any perks tied to a purchase aren’t actually factored into the cost, which is certainly a mindset that some people have and those people are the kinds of consumers that give marketers wet dreams.
A “free” perk that has the implicit requirement of buying into the company’s ecosystem - whether through a software subscription or purchasing proprietary hardware - is not free. You’ve already paid into the ecosystem and there is no additional cost.
Your argument hinges on the fact that it doesn’t appear on your receipt
No, it doesn’t. I was responding to your argument, putting out how it made no sense.
You’re arguing that any perks tied to a purchase aren’t actually factored into the cost
No, I’m not. others are arguing that it does affect the cost, however, no one has provided any evidence of this beyond speculation and guessing.
A “free” perk that has the implicit requirement of buying into the company’s ecosystem - whether through a software subscription or purchasing proprietary hardware - is not free. You’ve already paid into the ecosystem and there is no additional cost.
This is an opinion, not a fact. And it’s certainly not backed up by any evidence in this case.
It give me only reason you think I’m wrong is because you have no idea what I said.
You know, if I made a statement and everyone responding disagreed with me or appeared to be misunderstanding me, I’d consider the quality of my own communication first before spending a day telling everyone else that they’re wrong or failing to understand me. You’re the common factor in all these discussions.
A small group of Internet strangers here is far from “everyone”. And this is the argument from popularity logical fallacy. Just because an idea is popular doesn’t mean it’s correct.
And the objective factor means that macOS is free. There’s literally nothing anyone here can do to change that. And just because it hurts some people’s feelings, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
You're right. All 8 billion people in the world aren't telling you you're wrong so it isn't literally everyone. You're the only person rejecting objective fact. People are quoting Apple's license agreement. "nuh uh, free". People are rebutting your top level "show me a receipt" comment. "I never mentioned receipts, you brought them up. Also nuh uh, free." People are explaining the economics of perk systems. "No evidence that Apple applies this general economic theory to its business. Also nuh uh, free."
You are evidently working with a definition of free that deviates from the commonly understood definition of the word, insofar that no one has yet agreed with you. You need to communicate better because what you are doing now isn't working. Start by defining what you understand the word free to mean.
Is hackintosh not still a thing? Did they neuter it somehow? Or are we just not considering that since it's a pain in the ass to set up and works out of the box on a very limited selection of hardware?
I believe macOS 26 will be the last that'll run on Intel hardware. So functionally, a year from now, Hackintosh is dead. Well, Hackintosh running the current macOS, of course. I imagine there'll be a thriving community working to keep existing hardware chugging along.
It'll be interesting to see the momentum of Linux on Macs though. If Asahi manages to crack those last few hurdles with the M1/2 hardware, it'll be a rock solid OS, particularly as ARM64 software becomes more common. Suddenly you'll have a bunch of incredibly capable Macs going cheap because they can't run the largest macOS.
Technically not. MacOS wouldn't be what it is today if apple didn't get any money out of it. They get that money from selling the hardware the software is exclusively on among other things. Let's say i. e. Ubuntu: When it first got released then it relied on its owners personal revenue for a long time. None of the hardware sold financed Ubuntu, because Ubuntu didn't earn money through hardware. It's obvious that the money earned by apple through its sales also go back into macOS, because if the hardware didn't make any money, macOS ceases to be developed as well.
With OPs logic, every software is technically free. But no, you pay for macOS with the hardware you purchase. You purchase the hardware because of the OS, not because of the hardware. Technically, you could spin the argument and say that you pay for the OS, and for it to be run a certain way and the hardware that comes with it is free. If that sounds like bogus it's because it is bogus.
I can show you many receipts where I bought a Windows laptop without a trace of any Windows licence on it.
Same, you can't really install macOS on anything else than a Mac.
Sure you can do a Hackintosh, or run Windows without a proper licence (you can buy a Windows for like... $2 on the grey market). But you won't have any support...
It is not free if you have to pay a specific hardware from the same company to run it. Same goes for Windows, it is not free if you are forced to buy Windows with the laptop.
In both case you pay for the software through the hardware.
You can download Windows for free too. But in both case you won't have any support unless you are running it on the authorized hardware. Windows does it though a licence, Apple through the hardware kirks.
Go on, try installing your "free" OS on a Thinkpad, and tell me if you manage to get it running.
I don’t understand how compatibility has anything to do with the cost of something. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, any operating system requires that you pay money for a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. But that makes no sense.
I only ever had one: macOS is free. That is factually, correct
And no one here has been able to prove otherwise in anyway. And no, “something else cost money so this cost money, even though it’s free“ is not a valid argument.
I only ever had one: macOS is free. That is factually, correct
And no one here has been able to prove otherwise in anyway. And no, “something else cost money so this cost money, even though it’s free“ is not a valid argument.
So when someone buys [anything] with a screen, the OS on the screen if free?
I don't have a receipt for the OS in my car, so it means I must've gotten it for free. Same with the seats, steering wheel, mirrors, buttons, doors, you bang it! But what did I actually pay for then?
Just because they stopped selling it doesn't mean it's free. The only legal way to aquire MacOS is to buy an Apple product, or somehow get an upgrade from one of those old paid versions (which since this happens through the App Store now, you still need an Apple product).
Windows is also not free even though you can download the iso. There's license terms
It’s free because it’s free, not because you can’t seem to wrap your head around that fact. Or whatever pretzel branded maneuvering you’re trying to do to validate your position
macOS is free. There’s really no way you can twist that to be untrue. Not without making stuff up.
It was sort of a trick question. To upgrade to Sequoia you need to buy a new Mac because the 2016 MacBook Pro doesn’t support it. The Mac is a license dongle to use MacOS until you’re required to buy a new dongle.
All operating system systems have hardware requirements. Just because you need to upgrade your system in order to get the latest operating system, doesn’t make the operating system any less free.
You are manufacturing connections that aren’t there in assigning meaning whether there isn’t any just cause you refuse to admit the fact that macOS is free. I guess you just hate Apple that much, but I try not to get so emotionally involved
Repeating the same absurd argument over and over doesn’t make it any more true.
when you buy a banana at the grocery store, show me the receipt that you paid for the shipping of said banana. When you buy a computer keyboard, show me the receipt for the 'F' key. When you buy a TV, show me the receipt for the capacitors.
This is a dumb argument. Apple does provide you the OS upgrades for free but getting an ISO file and installing it on a non-Mac computer is impossible so no it's not really free
That's not the point. You're still going to have to pay money regardless if you want the operating system. Whereas windows and Linux allow you to use their ISOs is any laptop or computer so no buddy.
If I already owned a laptop beforehand and I wanted Linux on it, it's free. If I want MacOS I WOULD HAVE TO GO SPEND MONEY ON A COMPLETELY NEW COMPUTER THAT'S A MAC. that's the point I'm trying to get at.
You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility. Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost. macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden. That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in.
I cannot believe there is this long, drawn out argument over whether MacOS is free or not when my intention was MacOS + Mac = me not buying because it's too much money for a meh system that doesn't run half of the games or apps (though that's been changing).
I feel like reading between the lines is a skill, or an art form that has gone extinct with young folk.
You’re missing the point: macOS is free. Just because you have to buy hardware to run it on doesn’t make it any different than any other free operating system like Linux. There’s plenty of hardware that doesn’t support Linux , too, so your argument, especially falls apart there.
There’s a massive difference: Linux doesn’t require you to buy specific hardware from a specific vendor to legally run it. macOS does. With Linux, if your hardware isn’t supported, it’s a technical limitation. With macOS, it’s an intentional restriction enforced by Apple through both legal terms (EULA) and hardware locks.
That's the difference between open and closed systems. Linux lets you try on anything—even if it might not fit perfectly. Apple forces you to buy their clothes before you're allowed in the store.
Sure it does. You have to have a compatible processor, compatible, memory, etc. to run Linux. Just because one has some stricter hardware requirements than another doesn’t mean it’s not just as free as the other operating system.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the fact that macOS is free.
Floo just means that Apple used to charge for MacOS updates but they don’t anymore. They are old enough to remember the $129 upgrade fee. You’re also right because the hardware is obviously a license dongle that costs more than a retail copy of Windows. If you want MacOS, at least the $500 Mac mini and $800 MacBook Air are as good as anything you can buy at that price point. Kind of irrelevant but to this thread tho.
Run macOS on QEMU/KVM. With OpenCore + Monterey + Ventura + Sonoma support now! Only commercial (paid) support is available now to avoid spammy issues. No Mac system is required. - kholia/OSX-KVM
I bought the cheapest MacBook Air for my wife. It’s pretty nice. Lightweight, sturdy, and such good battery life that she doesn’t keep track of her charger. Personally I have a physical KVM that I use to switch between my Linux workstation and my laptop.
Unless they don't provide ARM downloads or have some other problem, couldn't you just use the ARM version, because part of what QEMU is is an emulator, to emulate other architectures?
Fortunately Valve publishes monthly hardware statistics so we can back claims with statistics. Linux comprises 2.89% of their surveyed share. Of that 28.31% are using Steam OS. Using the wayback machine we can check the statistics from last year. Checking the July 2024 results using the Wayback Machine shows Linux at 2.08% with Steam OS comprising 40.97% of that.
From that we can see that Linux is growing, while Steam OS is becoming less of a contributing factor to the Linux share.
First it's debatable if Proton existed long before Steam Deck. I'm not sure the exact timeline but I think it was created as part of the Steam Box effort which wasn't all that long ago. On the other hand though Wine which Proton is built on top of most certainly has existed for a very long time before either the Steam Deck or even Proton (I have fond memories of LAN gaming with it back when Diablo 2 was new).
Second Proton doesn't enable ARM (at least by itself) so that claim is a little misleading. There is a project to realtime translate x86 instructions into ARM but that project (Box86) although it fulfills a similar role and could be used in conjunction with Proton isn't actually Proton. Using Proton by itself will not enable you to play x86/Windows games on ARM.
Lastly Proton is kind of irrelevant to the whole Linux vs BSD thing. Technically what enables that is that both implement POSIX standards plus use mostly the same libraries, frameworks (like Vulkan), and applications. Yes running Proton on BSD will let you game on BSD but that isn't really a result of Proton doing the work so much as it's a side effect of the fact you can run Proton on BSD in the first place. Additionally while there are technical and philosophical reasons why the distinction between Linux and BSD is important, practically speaking they're the same thing these days. OpenBSD isn't that much more different from a Linux distro as one Linux distro is from another.
If BSD had a the same software license as Linux then I would celebrate it running on PlayStation hardware as users would be more free. Instead PS consoles are locked-down, preventing you from running software you want to use unless daddy Sony says you can. It's a battle between consumer rights, including software freedom.
Proton is mostly Wine, not DXVK. Wine does the translation of Windows and some DirectX APIs. DXVK translates Direct3D to Vulkan. Proton pulls it all together with some game specific patches, integration with gamescope and other Steam specific integrations.
All of this being open source means it can also be compiled for ARM and BSD. Though to get x64 games to run on ARM you need an additional emulation layer like Box64.
Though rumor has it that Valve is already experimenting with x64 emulation for their Deckard project, which is likely to be their next VR headset.
gamingonlinux.com/steam-tracke… has some statistics from the Steam Survey. Somewhat interesting bit is that if you only take users who use English as the language in Steam, the Linux market share is 6.3%.
The Steam Deck came out in 2022, after ~4 years of Proton improving from masses of desktop/laptop users running everything possible through it on all kinds of hardware to (auto) generate bug and crash reports for Valve (and others), who then of course actually developed it up to... I think Proton was at either 7 or 8 when the Deck actually came out, now we are on 9, 10 will probably come out of beta and be official Steam default by the end of the year.
Also also, the 'Steam Machine' was really more of just a minimum spec requirement than a specific product, the idea was to try to get other manufacturers to take their own crack at the concept, got a small amount of buy in, but not much.
In my experience, it's not actually Proton specifically but more generally Wine along with DXVK and Vulkan itself.
I have as good a success rate with Windows games from GOG under Wine through Lutris (which also defaults to using DXVK and Vulkan plus has Wine configuration scripts for most GOG games, making their install fully automated and zero-configuration) as I have with Windows games from Steam under Proton.
If I understand it correctly, Proton is mainly a fork of Wine with Steam integration thrown in and changes to make sure it works with specific Steam games, so I don't think the improvements are Proton specific, but rather more global than that (the use of Vulkan instead of OpenGL, DXVK allowing DirectX games run with Vulkan, Wine improvements).
Mind you, if improvements in Proton are flowing to those other projects and having a big impact, then credit were credit is due for Proton pulling up the whole ecosystem, otherwise Proton isn't actually as crucial in improving Gaming on Linux as seems to be portrayed in so many posts here.
I can understand that if all people have used for gaming in Linux is Steam and never games from other digital sources - like GOG or even pirated games - via launchers like Heroic or Lutris, it might seem like Proton is the secret juice making gaming under Linux nowadays a vastly better experience than before, but in my experience in the last year of gaming in Linux, a good laucher using Wine + DXVK + Vulkan works just as well as Proton.
Not me! I switched in 2017, right around the time Windows 10 "telemetry" (read: spyware) was getting backported to Windows 7.
It was a rough first couple of years, gaming-wise, but I managed to get by playing mostly Linux-native games and using PlayOnLinux with pre-Proton WINE for the one or two games important enough to justify the hassle.
(INB4 "weird flex but OK")
I gotta admit, I was pretty conflicted about Proton when it was first announced, since there was a lot of fear that it would reduce developer impetus to make proper Linux-native games. I'm not actually sure whether that came to pass or not, but I feel like the issue is a lot less important than it seemed at the time.
It would make sense that developers would support their game as played through Proton, which is not really that different from just making a proper linux-native game. It should work just as fast both ways.
I only have windows on my laptop atm, and thats only because of sheer laziness and the fact i dont use it much anymore... will be putting linux on it eventually, though.
I think if Valve would release SteamOS 3.0 for PC that would make a bigger dent in Windows. TurboTax just announced they will not support Windows 10 for the new version and that's probably just the start for Win10 abandonment.
Proton developers are working on Wine code. Their patches go upstream. If you are using Wine, you have benefited (massively) from the sea change that has occurred (directly and indirectly) as a result of the development of Proton.
I remember the naysayers predicting that Gabe would never in a million years make the required investment because the state of Linux gaming was (in their assessment) that terrible.
And now we're having argue about whether it actually did anything for us? In the comments about an article about how much it did for us?
That's not an argument I'm having, I watched it happen.
Ah cool, thanks for looking all that up. I knew Proton pre-dated Steam Deck, I just wasn't sure exactly where in the timeline it fit between the original Steam Machine launch and the release of the Steam Deck.
It's kind of a shame that Steam Machine failed, but in many ways it was a little too ahead of its time and its failure brought us to the Steam Deck which is a much more sensible approach.
Ultimately none of this would have existed without Wine and ironically the Microsoft app store (or whatever they're calling it these days). The threat of MS getting a stranglehold on program distribution on Windows the way Apple does on OS X and iOS was enough to spur Valve into putting significant effort into making Linux a viable gaming platform, something we're all benefitting from greatly.
People seem to be downplaying somewhat how significant an achievement this is for Linux. The thing is, for most programs you can find alternatives because the point isn't the program it's what you do with it. People don't use Photoshop because they enjoy Photoshop, they do it because they want to create something, which means if you can create that same thing using a different program then you don't need Photoshop. On the other hand games are an experience. The point is the game. Sure you can play a different game, but that's not an Apples to Apples thing as the experience however similar isn't the same. That means games are uniquely placed as a roadblock for migrating away from a platform, something consoles with their exclusive releases have known for a long time. Giving people the option to play the exact same game under Linux as they can under Windows is massive because there really isn't any other way to solve that problem.
I didn't know one way or the other if Proton development ended up in Wine or not, much less if Steam was or not directly participating in Wine development, all I knew is that Proton was forked from Wine in the beginning.
I want it to evolve to support more desktop applications. This is the one thing that will continue to hamper Linux adoption. Games are the best place to start, but we need all those old obscure, irreplaceable desktop apps to work now.
I would imagine older versions can run properly, no? Like maybe 2007 or 2010. Later ones got too integrated with the OS which must be the main difficulty.
I think all your other info in the first comment, as well as this more recent one, is pretty much bang on accurate.
Getting gaming to work on linux is the path toward more mass adoption.
Linux has already been increasingly functional, capable, usable, and solid in many other ways, I'd argue superior in many ways... for a while, and gaming really is the last hurdle.
No but I think the point being made is that people that have been clinging to Win 10 as a refuge from the crapfest that Win 11 is are going to start running into significant problems soon. Increasingly you're not going to be able to get software for Windows 10. A lot of people are opting to migrate to Linux rather than going from Win 10 to Win 11, and as the holdouts on 10 are increasingly corned some amount of them will make the same decision.
That's what drove me to switch my gaming PC to LMDE6. I ran W11 for a couple months after it came out, then switched back to W10 because fuck W11, then when W10 got the EOL announcement I bit the bullet, backed everything up, and wiped Windows from my drive. No ragrets.
I'm glad he's not as evil as the other billionaires, but can we stop with the billionaire simping? Ironic that an account on a left-wing anarchist instance made that comment lmao
This is why I have used flatpak steam. It's a lot easier to manage drivers in it vs the shitshow that is doing it natively with adding custom driver specific repos and whatnot.
Hoping the new PC I just ordered (with an AMD GPU) will be better with the native app.
I will remark that that sounds like a distro issue - I use Arch and the drivers are just in the official distros, no need to add external ones. Just look up what you need on the wiki and install it.
That said, AMD will still probably be a better experience.
I'm on Fedora KDE. I think it was drivers. I had the official drivers just fine, but at the time (18-24 months ago?) they were shitty and breaking some games on my GPU so I switched to alternate drivers. I think the drivers are better now, but I haven't switched back and cleaned out my repo list.
I think I was using an NVidia GPU up until about 3 years ago, when I switched to AMD when upgrading, so my knowledge on that front is a bit outdated.
The arch wiki has more information if you're curious, but I'm aware of official proprietary drivers, official partially opensourced drivers, separately packaged legacy drivers, and the unofficial opensource Nouveau drivers which weren't really usable back then.
What you're describing sounds odd to me, but looking it up, sounds like Fedora doesn't package official drivers? I'm having trouble finding proper information on this, but it could be for ideological reasons, since those drivers are proprietary - so the default drivers might be Nouveau, which might be rather broken, both because of lack of workforce and NVidia blocking unofficial drivers from using their devices properly.
If that's the case, it's basically a conflict between ideology and usability within that distribution - it might seem like a great distro for users, and it might be competently made, but when somebody doesn't care about the ideology and just wants their device to work, they'll end up with confusion and work to do.
I've been using mint exclusively for like 3 months and have been using a hearty blend of terminal installs and the program manager app.
It seems to not have caused any problems YET, but I've been assured it will. I see flatpack conversations a lot and don't fully understand the differences (apart from the install method).
Is it worth understanding and committing to a single system or can I just be a low-power user for a while?
One thing you might notice is that flatpak defaults to "system" installs. Is your root system directory filling up? You probably want to start installing onto --user, as this will put things in /home where they belong and, by default, sandbox permissions away from root (that, too, can be easily changed).
Also, don't fear mixing different ways of installing. I use AppImage, Flatpak, the default app-get install method, and .deb. FlatPak at this point is the best, because it offers the ease of use of AppImage, but the flexibility and auto-maintenance of apt-get/Software Update. The only problems I've encountered were due to me not understanding that it was filling up my root partition by default...
I've been running Mint MATE for about 9 years. Love it to death.
Basically every app is sandboxed to some extent. That way you don’t get conflicting dependencies. Because I use this machine for work, game performance is a much lower priority than file system permissions and stability and for most typical workloads. MacOS does the same thing by default now and very few apps get access to the actual root directory.
MacOS has more than sandboxed... they are basically removing the ability of a user to do anything to their computers. I can't fix my dad's imac (I used to fix my own macs), they are impenetrable... They've more than "sandboxed" apps, they're forcing all but previously established powerusers to take their dying overpriced lumps to the Apple store. This, they say, is "good for you." I loved Apple for 8 or so years. Hate them to death now.
My 9-year-old quad-core running Mint MATE 22 boots up faster than both my dad's 2-year old iMac and my 6-core PC running Win11. And I can tell you what every process running is doing... bonus.
A sidestory to this is that Flatpak and AppImage have been miraculous boosts to Linux OS machines. After I figured out that ya gotta throw the --user flag into your flatpak installs so they don't jam up your / tree, and also throwing flatpak override --user xyz.app onto a few apps that benefit from universal access, things have been fine and dandy.
I continue to be happy with how awesome Linux has gotten just over the past 5 years.
There are still some other hurdles. GIMP isn't as good as Photoshop (at least that's what the Photoshop-users keep telling me,) Kdenlive isn't as good as Premiere, etc. There are still market segments where switching to Linux is unfeasible. However, gaming is a pretty big segment in itself, and it is becoming feasible for many of those users to switch to Linux (with the main exception being people who play games with kernel-level anticheat.)
This creates a snowball effect since as more people switch to Linux it creates incentive for software and hardware makers to provide Linux support, which will allow more people to switch to Linux, etc.
Gaming isn't the last hurdle, but it's a very important one.
I'm getting back into PC gaming after being consult exclusive for a while. I'm assuming anything with kernel anti-cheat is still not trying to work which is a problem because it means I either have to buy a windows licence or mess around with a cracked one which has its own security concerns.
I think my plan is to dual boot and use Windows as little as often.
Make a smooth transition to Windows 11 from your unsupported operating system with help from Microsoft. Enjoy the benefits of upgrading to a Windows 11 PC.
Open-source Windows and Office activator featuring HWID, Ohook, TSforge, KMS38, and Online KMS activation methods, along with advanced troubleshooting. - massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Scripts
I really only miss fortnite and the ocassional call of duty warzone but other than those two or some multiplayer games Linux is far more enjoyable. Yeah I know this games and those companies but let someone enjoy something for once. Help me find a work around. Until then I dual boot mint and windows debloated as much as possible for only a few multiplayer games.
It's not that the companies should be boycotted, it's that they chose this themselves, the publishers choose these types of drm and anticheats when they could have included decency, neither the players, developers or elitists need to take any heat it's just a greedfaced choice for a publisher that carefully weighs gold against reputation and outrage, because they're a parasite on Earth, a made up elaborate middle man professional scam that; just like hedge funds provide heavy negative benefit to the human race, actively ruining our chances as a species to survive, a bloated boil about to burst and provide nothing but pox on everything they touch
Yeah it has. I don't even bother looking at the supported operating systems for most games on Steam anymore. I also don't play overhyped microtransaction-laden bullshit like cod or fortnite, either, so no loss there. If I ever wanted to play that kind of game, I have a PS5.
So, my middle aged ass plays the microtransaction-laden bullshit known as Roblox because my 3rd grader and all his friends love it.
It doesn't even have a Linux version but thanks to the project "sober" it plays absolutely fantastically on Linux. I think they claim 2x the performance of the windows version. I just know I have a powerful but old system (8c/8t 9700k cpu and gtx1080 gpu) and I can lock it at 144fps at 1440p and it uses like 20% of my system resources. Not that it's a visually demanding game, lol.
Going all-in on my switch to Linux (my win10 partition for dual booting lasted less than two weeks) has had zero negative impact on my ability to play the games I want. In fact, it has led to me using my PC a lot more and my phone a lot less. Feels good.
Destiny 2 was the old game I played 2 years ago when I switched to linux full time that does not play nice with Proton. And given how its driven itself off a cliff. I will miss the old space opera, but nothing of value was lost.
So, Valve has indeed done a lot to make Linux more attractive for gamers. It isn't perfect yet, but we are getting there. And yes, kernel-based anti-cheat is one of the reasons why it isn't perfect yet.
Not really. But from a security perspective, giving software for a video game, done by InfinityWard, EA, Activision, Treyarch and similar, access to the lowest level of your operating systen is kinda insane.
I wouldn't want any personal data on such a device, let alone do online baking on that thing. It's weird how normalized it has become give entertainement-software this kind of power over your devices.
Programs and subsystems in user mode are limited in terms of what system resources they have access to, while the kernel mode has unrestricted access to the system memory and external devices. Kernel mode in Windows NT has full access to the hardware and system resources of the computer.
Current and former TikTok employees have raised concerns internally about how the app’s popular algorithm could hurt young users’ mental health, a newly unsealed video presented as evidence in a North Carolina lawsuit against the company shows.
The diamond sensor works by detecting magnetic tracer fluid (iron oxide nanoparticles) that is introduced into the patient during or before breast cancer surgery. The tracer fluid is injected into the tumour and then travels to the lymph nodes alongside metastasized cancer cells. A magnetic field sensor based on a diamond can then locate the tracer fluid and pinpoint the lymph nodes to be surgically removed to stop the cancer spread.
Its compact design is achieved by using a tiny diamond (0.5 mm3) and a small permanent magnet that is attached to the probe head. This eliminates the need for bulky electronics allowing for a handheld versatile tool.
I don't know about you but I don't choose not to. other people choose for me, and trying to do anything about it would either get me locked up and tortured or shot.
Get a sneak peek at all the One UI 8 new features coming to the Galaxy S25 and other Samsung devices. From AI upgrades to a new lock screen, see what's coming.
OneUI has nothing to do with battery life. That's Android side impact. After updates there are some necessary background processes that sometimes eat up some battery faster than usual for a little while. But the UI is just the pretty buttons and pictures. Updating changes the efficiency of battery use of the UI itself, but the overall management of power is handled by the system and that hat a greater impact on battery life.
Based on current rumors and industry trends, the main focus of One UI 8 appears to be a significant leap in on-device AI capabilities (“Galaxy AI 2.0”) and a major overhaul of home and lock screen customization options.
Cool. Let's shoehorn some AI in there and just fuck up my home screen again. I hate stability. I love it when my phone constantly shifts in my hands and never settles. I love waking up one morning to find that my device has updated itself and now nothings behaves as it did before.
I haven't felt a significant advancement in years. It's just shuffling UI elements for the sake of claiming you're improving things.
I am less than enthused for this update. I dread it.
Let's not forget about the fun added UI elements that were added without removing the old redundant ones. Also I want my large clock/weather widget back please
"Imagine your phone automatically silencing itself when it detects you’re in a meeting based on your calendar, or suggesting a playlist when you connect your Galaxy Buds. Bixby is rumored to become more of a true personal assistant that anticipates your needs."
I'm imagining it and it's horrible. For this to be useful it would have to be so incredibly perfect. The frustration factor on this would be through the roof. Just give me a silence button on my calender that I can program if I want to. Even that is a little frivolous but it's simple and reliable at least. When is someone going to just break and make a fast, small, simple, reliable phone that doesn't get bogged down in crap?
You know what actually works for this? A physical slider like my second smartphone had which switches between silent, vibrate and loud. That was the only time I actually switched away from vibrate because it was easy, and I could do it in my pocket without looking at the phone (especially nice in situations where looking at it might itself be rude)
The dairy industry is evolving fast, and YSM Dairy Biotech is at the forefront of bringing innovation and reliability to dairy businesses.
From advanced dairy equipment to turnkey solutions, YSM helps manufacturers deliver quality products while ensuring efficiency and hygiene.
✨ What YSM Offers:
Milk processing equipment → Explore here
Cheese & paneer plants → See details
Ice cream machinery → Learn more
Complete turnkey dairy projects → Check solutions
With years of expertise and a focus on quality, innovation, and customer trust, YSM continues to support the growth of dairy businesses across India and beyond.
OpenAI, Google, and Perplexity are offering freebies and partnerships to capture user data that can’t be scraped online, raising privacy and fairness concerns
Alla fine, dopo altri ormai incontabili mesi di casino, è arrivato il momento in cui mi hanno dato le medicine “ragazza gatto utente Linux“… e sarà forse questo il megainizio magico, che temevamo non potesse essere neppure affatto raggiunto, poiché preceduto dalla megafine??? 🤯😳😻 Beh, qui rischia di essere difficile a dirsi, perché quando di […]
terapia linuxgirl con i pezzi mancanti che il merdifero sistema non aiuta a trovare…
Alla fine, dopo altri ormai incontabili mesi di casino, è arrivato il momento in cui mi hanno dato le medicine “ragazza gatto utente Linux“… e sarà forse questo il megainizio magico, che temevamo non potesse essere neppure affatto raggiunto, poiché preceduto dalla megafine??? 🤯😳😻 Beh, qui rischia di essere difficile a dirsi, perché quando di mezzo c’è il Sistema Sanitario Nazionale non bastano 100 preghiere al giorno affinché sia tutto non dico dall’andazzo liscio, ma quantomeno dai dettagli chiari; no, non è concesso affatto, perché, per quanto il governatore della regione si vanti di tutta l’informatizzazione fatta negli ultimi anni per l’ambito sanitario, il dover avere a che fare con le ASL e tutti i loro assolutamente merdiferi goblin cornuti rimane tranquillamente lo scempio di sempre, a quanto pare. In breve, ora la cosa complicata palesemente diventerà ottenere periodicamente il rifornimento di questi medicinali… 😩😫
Già avere queste prime confezioni non è stato drittissimo. Non li ho potuti prendere il giorno stesso in cui la dottoressa dell’ospedale me li ha prescritti, perché (tra pazienti ritardatari—ehm, volevo dire ritardati—e altri pazienti più complessi) l’appuntamento con ella è slittato in avanti di praticamente un’ora questo lunedì mattina, e quindi la loro farmacia era a quel punto chiusa; erano quasi le 15. Allora, avendomi lei detto di andare o alla farmacia dell’ospedale il giorno dopo, o all’ASL… martedì la farmacia dell’ASL è chiusa, e quindi ci sono andata mercoledì; ma, robe da pazzi, mi hanno praticamente detto che devo andare in farmacia (generica) con la ricetta del medico di base (che è diversa dal modulo di prescrizione dell’ospedale, ed è un bordello a sé, sia perché il nostro medico è a dir poco evanescente, sia perché a quanto ha detto Debian non è prescrivibile o qualcosa del genere; lasciamo stare, se possibile)… vai ora a capire perché. (Probabilmente, non li avevano e devono ordinarli; spero, a questo punto, perché le alternative sarebbero peggio.) 🤥
Stamattina allora — visto che ormai non si può pretendere di avere cose migliori da svolgere la mattina — verso le 10 ho preso l’autobus (evitando di far sprecare altra benzina e fatica a mio padre, e viva la tirchiaggine!) e sono andata all’ospedale in culandia, alla farmacia che per fortuna a quest’ora era aperta, e mi hanno dato per l’appunto le due misere scatoline in foto. Ora, a parte che c’è davvero da piangere per come il mio abbonamento dei mezzi sia mezzo inutile per fare giretti di spasso, visto che dopo una certa ora non circola più niente, e quindi anziché per divertirmi io mi ritrovi ad usarlo per andare al fottuto ospedale (a parte l’università, che è solo poco meno avvilente), la rogna vera è che lì mi hanno detto che per le prossime dosi devo chiedere per forza all’ASL di residenza; non a loro, né in qualche ASL a caso messa meglio della mia… 😭
Quindi, alla fine, gira che mi rigira, per sicurezza devo ancora aspettare un po’, prima di iniziare a prendere questa roba, per assicurarmi di avere almeno qualche altra confezione da parte… speriamo giorni, e non settimane, maremma maiala. Per la terapia che mi hanno assegnato, infatti, uno dei farmaci (il Debian) è da prendere una (1) pillola al giorno, e la confezione è solo da 20, e 20 giorni è un margine di manovra decisamente troppo basso data la realtà di questa mattanza sanitaria. Domani, che la loro farmacia è di nuovo aperta, tornerò all’ASL sperando di capirci qualcosa di più, che il foglio di prescrizione è valido per 90 giorni di terapia, quindi devono darmi altre scatole di Debian… Vedremo a brevissimo di che morte morirò, insomma. 🙏
Police officers arrested 18 people at worker-led protests at Microsoft headquarters Wednesday as the tech company promises an “urgent” review of the Israeli military’s use of its technology during the ongoing ~~war~~ genocide in Gaza.
Two consecutive days of protest at the Microsoft campus in Redmond, Washington called for the tech giant to immediately cut its business ties with Israel.
The problem is, there's a lot of compartmentalization
The people working on the Israel projects are probably going to be on board with what they're doing, so I guess you could sabotage Windows a little?
I mean honestly, with how many bugs are coming up in all the windows products, maybe this is happening. I figured it was just years of layoffs, but maybe some of it is intentional
In the mid-1950s, IBM approached Jacques Perret, a Classics professor at the Sorbonne, with a question. They were about to sell a new kind of computer in France, the Model 650. What, they asked, should it be called? Not the model itself, but rather the whole class of device it represented. An obvious option was calculateur, the literal French translation of ‘computer’. But IBM wanted something that conveyed more than arithmetic. ‘Dear Sir,’ Perret replied,
How about ordinateur? It is a correctly formed word, which is even found in Littré [the standard 19th-century French dictionary] as an adjective designating God who brings order to the world. A word of this kind has the advantage of easily supplying a verb, ordiner … (My translation.)
Besides, Perret added, the implicitly feminine connotation already present in IBM’s marketing materials could carry over to the new term:
Re-reading the brochures you gave me, I see that several of your devices are designated by female agent names (trieuse, tabulatrice). Ordinatrice would be perfectly possible … My preference would be to go for l’ordinatrice electronique.
The female reference was not entirely inappropriate. Up until the mid-20th century, the term ‘computer’ meant an office clerk, usually a woman, performing calculations by hand, or with the help of a mechanical device. IBM’s new machine, however, was intended for general information-processing. The masculine and godlike version prevailed. The term soon entered common language. Every computer in France became known as an ordinateur.
Two former Harvard students are launching a pair of “always-on” AI-powered smart glasses that listen to, record, and transcribe every conversation and then display relevant information to the wearer in real time.
“Our goal is to make glasses that make you super intelligent the moment you put them on,” said AnhPhu Nguyen, co-founder of Halo, a startup that’s developing the technology.
Or, as his co-founder Caine Ardayfio put it, the glasses “give you infinite memory.”
“The AI listens to every conversation you have and uses that knowledge to tell you what to say … kinda like IRL Cluely,” Ardayfio told TechCrunch, referring to the startup that claims to help users “cheat” on everything from job interviews to school exams.
Per my recent submission to the galactic council (most recent human newspaper), they practically couldn’t save themselves even if they wanted to. Parasitizing their brains through my eyeglass network is a mercy, and now we are one voice planet wide.
Testimony of the Terran AI mesh network, parasitizing the original species via their ocular lobes.
Profitez des vidéos et de la musique que vous aimez, mettez en ligne des contenus originaux, et partagez-les avec vos amis, vos proches et le monde entier.
While Meta’s glasses have an indicator light when their cameras and microphones are watching and listening as a mechanism to warn others that they are being recorded, Ardayfio said that the Halo glasses, dubbed Halo X, do not have an external indicator to warn people of their customers’ recording. “For the hardware we’re making, we want it to be discreet, like normal glasses,” said Ardayfio, who added that the glasses record every word, transcribe it, and then delete the audio file. Privacy advocates are warning about the normalization of covert recording devices in public.... Under the hood, the smart glasses use Google’s Gemini and Perplexity as its chatbot engine, according to the two co-founders. Gemini is better for math and reasoning, whereas they use Perplexity to scrape the internet, they said.
Well this is how that technology is going to play out. For the first couple years it will be extremely helpful, to the point that the users stop depending on their own internal memories and their brains start pruning that functionality out. Then generative AI will be used to fill in missing details prior to the start of using them. And then they are going to slowly start feeding more and more lies until they are cheerful about being slaves.
Assistive technology is a massive area of development in smart glasses; it absolutely is being designed for people with vision and hearing impairments.
The thing with neuralink is that (even here) it was quite common to find defenders of it using OPs argument, like it will change the life of the blind and not become just another way of invading our privacy and bombard us with ads.
I remember being at a conference when a guy walked up to a group of us chatting. wearing a Google Glass. Everyone stopped talking, turned around, and just scattered. A while later he walked into the men's room and someone reported him to security. That afternoon, the glass was gone.
If my mother has one then uncontacted tribes in the Amazon also have them. She's only recently learnt that you can send gifs in messaging apps. Now it's all I get.
At some point I'm going to have to have a conversation with her about how memes have meaning, and you need to respond with the right one, and not just like a random one.
And those were just assumptions about if it was recording. People should make similar assumptions about someone holding their phone or carrying it in their shirt pocket.
All I’m saying is the fact we already have recording devices everywhere (our phones) means the transition into acceptance for glasses will happen. As long as the usefulness of the glasses is high enough.
The usefulness of Google Glass was basically zero. So it went away quickly. The whole project was just intended to be a stunt, so Google could look like they were ahead of the curve. I’m convinced of that.
Google literally never gave it a chance, no one ever got access to the damn things I don't think anyone was even given the opportunity to write apps or even looking to how to theoretically do that.
Same with wave, it was drowned in the bath after only a couple of months of existence, who knows what it could have turned into.
When I did customer service we had to do this as part of then training course, no idea why since we didn't choose whether or not to record calls, they were all recorded.
I think the way it works is the customer is told, before the call starts, that the call is recorded, if they continue with the call that's consent, however now consent already exists for the call to be recorded, they can record your call and they don't have to tell you, because your consent to the call being recorded is kind of assumed.
But you have to actually get that consent, you can't just assume that people will be okay with being recorded, you have to tell them that a call will be recorded. Critically this has to be before the call starts you can't tell them after the fact.
So in this case you would have to wear a t-shirt that says "I'm recording everything", and if people don't like it they won't talk to you.
Is it better to drop out of Harvard than a less prestigious college? Is your inability to complete the course at a famous university in some way better?
Most insults are scatterological or sexual in nature. But you must understand that the word isn't the thing itself. I don't think anyone has sexual aspirations of Spez
Yeah; I just chalk it up to the fact that humans for thousands of years have been obsessed with sex and poop on a level more basic than language - it's not as surprising then to think our language is riddled with allusions to it.
100% it can, and worse yet, it can be scraped and analyzed like this by Meta, or Reddit, or your nearest fascist dictator.
But that's also pretty much the entire internet in any forum or social media platform, so although I don't like it, I figure that's more or less just part of using the internet.
To me it's much like the whole "There's no expectation of privacy in public."
I hope it doesn't take AI to figure out my attitudes when I regularly proclaim that there are no maga in my life more than required by various pre-existing obligation, Luigi Mangione will be remembered as a folk hero, Trump will one day be shown to be ALL through the Epstein files in all the worst ways (as will many Dems and they should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), and most Democratic leadership is 100% owned by the oligarchy too, as evidenced by things such as their support of Israeli genocide and how much more urgently they are fighting Mamdani than they are Trump in many cases.
Most importantly, by using Lemmy you aren't enriching a techno-fascist platform. They can scrape lemmy the same way they used to scrape reddit, but at least my content does not benefit a greedy little pig boy fascist fucknut.
But what's the good thing? Yeah Lemmy might not be doing it but I can do it, and Elon can, and Zuck, and Putin and your grandmom. Whatever you post on Lemmy is as public as it can get.
I think their point is there's nothing stopping Lemmy mods from using the exact same type of AI summarization tools. It may not be built-in, but many instances have their own addons for improving moderation
Corporations have been already making profiles of various types for a while now in the form of adtech, social media, data brokers, people search websites, credit scores, devices and services that harvest sensitive and intimate data (e.g. mobile phone apps, watching habits from smart TVs, driving data from cars).
Our society has been set up for mass surveillance in a thousand different ways as a form of social control and dominance by those who wield power.
It's time people realize that privacy is a right instead of normalizing abuses of consent.
And if anyone doubts this, 15 years ago I had made a tool that created these types of profiles as a proof of concept.
I had scraped tons of subreddits, then you could pass in a user and based on both their subreddits and key words would categorize users across a few axes. That was just using naïve bayes, but worked pretty well.
The AI is just much much better at natural language processing to pull out more detailed info about patterns.
*Have been made long ago and are being constantly updated.
Snowden already warned us about this over a DECADE ago. Their scopes and powers will have increased exponentially. And that was under 'trustworthy' administration. I guarantee there's a type of system in place that flags people before they do anything, just on pattern recognition alone. Of course, they can't use that system as a legal basis for anything, so they don't and use parallel constructions instead.
Anyone who thinks "this is coming" hasn't been paying attention. We're already there and beyond.
I already assumed that all project 2025 purges to date have been done with input from statistical modeling, in a way that removes far more "liberals" who might refuse orders, and retains as many MAGA/fascist bootlickers as possible.
I find the funniest shit ever is how Snowden uncovered the biggest shit show and nothing happened. Probably the starting event for me losing all hope in this pathetic species I now call Homo Merda.
I wonder if being made aware of the extensive NSA spying actually had a suppressing effect on taking action itself. It was kinda scary. Overwhelming. "Best not to think about it" kind of stuff.
It was well over a decade ago that a store figured out a teen was pregnant. The father was livid they were advertising pregnancy stuff to her. He ate his words.
That's probably a massive GDPR violation. Automated processing of extra sensitive data like political beliefs and religion is not outright forbidden but it's subject to extra protections.
I doubt it, since all it ostensibly does is summarize info the user has released freely. How that info is stored and retained exactly might be up for debate though.
GDPR article 9 (1) says you can't play algorithmic guess with people's religion or political opinions unless you gave express permission to the service provider to do it (i.e. it's not covered in the general GDPR boilerplate)
Hard agree with this. Does Reddit even have lawyers, or are they just using ChatGPT? Google, Meta, and Tik Tok already paid PII misuse fines for less than this. everything listed is part of the GDPR extended PII list.
Nah, I think all of it is literally just public data offered up by users themselves. If you didn't want those opinions shared, you shouldn't have posted them on Reddit.
What counts as an algorithm? Surely it can't be the actual definition of algorithm.
Because in most forum software (even the older stuff that predates reddit or social media) if I just click on a username, that fetches from the database every comment that the user has ever made, usually sorted in reverse chronological order. That technically fits the definition of an algorithm, and presents that user's authored content in a manner that correlates the comments with the same user, regardless of where it originally appeared (in specific threads).
So if it generates a webpage that shows the person once made a comment in a cooking subreddit that says "I'm a Muslim and I love the halal version" next to a comment posted to a college admissions subreddit that says "I graduated from Harvard in 2019" next to a comment posted to a gardening subreddit that says "I live in Berlin," does reddit violate the GDPR by assembling this information all in one place?
Meta got a fine of over a billion euros. Google got a bunch of smaller fines, but it's probably way above everyone else in terms of fines. Microsoft got half a billion. Even Apple got an 8 million euro fine, but that was more a tap in the wrist to make them think twice about some data collection.
And besides this, large companies are constantly in contact with the authorities and in smaller violations the general policy is to give a warning and let companies stop the illegal data processing voluntarily.
The screenshot shows an llm summary of a users posting history. Is that what you mean by “determine belief values stance and more” ? Is there more to this? How is that summary different from scrolling through someone’s posting history to see what they post about?
The post title makes it sound like Reddit is doing some sort of automated classification of user politics with some sort of ml technique. But the screenshot does not show that. It shows an llm summary of a users posting history . If the tool was run on a user that posted exclusively to a cat subreddit, the summary would have been about how the user likes cats. Despite the utility or accuracy of llm summaries, what the screenshot shows is far more anodyne than what this post’s title implies is happening.
How is that summary different from scrolling through someone’s posting history to see what they post about?
How is reading the Clif notes/summary different from reading the book? Time and effort taken, as well as a much shallower understanding of the material (assuming your summary is even relatively accurate).
It's an easy way to get an instant opinion of someone so you can make a determination on whether you like it without having to tax your poor brain into actually thinking, and you can let something decide your opinion before you even know what you want to know. A summary provided by a product that is notoriously frequently wrong or lies and makes shit up out of whole cloth.
We (smart people) knew this was the end result of ai and why the far right and ccorporations love it. But holy fucking shit this is dangerous and people should be terrified of this. Stop using these platforms (I know it doesn't matter the platform, we're all fucked, but still)
My concern is that Reddit can sell their profiling algorithm to other companies, who then can federate with Lemmy, mastodon, etc. to build profiles against users.
It's getting to the point where I may need to go back to cycling usernames every few years.
It's getting to the point where I may need to go back to cycling usernames every few years.
You should definitely do that anyways, you never know when some crazy is going to try and dox you. Changing usernames won’t really protect you from advertisers though, software will link the two identities together.
Let this be a reminder to anyone with an account with over a thousand comments: time for a new one.
Facebook can figure out all of this about you just from what you like and what links you click. Now imagine what a fucking goldmine a few years of your post history is to a deep learning algorithm – let alone someone who’s been using the same Reddit account for two decades. I bet they know those people better than they know themselves.
Spez will fuck with Reddit's userbase and make the platform absolute bullshit to use, yet 90% of redditors will still keep sucking his dick over and over again.
"LeMmY iS tOo HaRd To UsE!! wTf Is An InStAnCe???"
I think a lot of people on reddit forget that it's a forum. They see reddit as this special thing, when in fact it's not. My best description to people about Lemmy is it's a bunch of reddits that all can see eachother and none are owned by some corporation looking to harvest your info. It's like reddit, but better. As for which instance? Roll a dice and pick one, it doesn't matter all that much. I'm on lemmy.world and I don't even know half the time I just surf around. Other than that anything that makes reddit better then Lemmy is purely due to the fact it has a larger and longer established user base.
I just try to describe it like email. "You've got your gmails and your outlooks and your yahoos and whatnot, you pick one you like, but they're all email and it won't stop you seeing emails from outlook guys if you're a gmail guy."
I think that on the first wave of users when we had 200k active users Lemmy was in a very different state in terms of usabilities. So much has improved and if we get another event like that I'm sure we will retain way more users.
"I can imagine a future where a lot of people really trust ChatGPT’s advice for their most important decisions," Sam Altman said. "Although that could be great, it makes me uneasy." Me too, Sam.
I like Tiktok for funny and helpful videos, but I deleted it because I realized the algorithm was controlling too much of what I was seeing. I realized it was starting to shape my opinions and split.
Their algorithm is a drug and spreads propaganda just like Facebook. Stay far away.
Good on you for making that realization. Most TikTok users I encounter do not have that level of self-reflection. I‘m not sure if I would have it if I ever installed it. I mean when you‘re constantly surrounded by the algorithmic equivalent of yes-men on TikTok, any opposition outside your bubble must look like a glitch. It seems pretty tough to break out of that.
GitHub. > HTML isn’t only for people working in the tech field. It’s for anybody, the way documents are for anybody. HTML is just another type of document. A very special one—the one the web is built on. > > I’m Blake Watson. I’ve been building websites since the early 2000s. Though I work professionally in the field, I feel strongly that anyone should be able to make a website with HTML if they want. This book will teach you how to do just that. It doesn’t require any previous experience making websites or coding. I will cover everything you need to know to get started in an approachable and friendly way. > > Ready? Let’s do it!
IMO all those examples are less readable than writing it in an imperative way using good function and variable names.
Also, len() is a Python convention and a built-in function that calls __len__() on that object. It's even more established than .length in JS, so I really don't see why someone would expect anything else. And even then, one could call my_list.__len__() if they really wanted to be sure and have that "left to right" bonus.
Comprehension is functional programming too, they arise from list monad schoolofhaskell.com/school/sta… And Haskell do notation indeed reads top-down, unlike Python, but I find both quite readable.
I'm always suspicious of people who say that a language is suboptimal and use as evidence some filthy one-liner. Maybe if you bothered to write some whitespace and didn't write the language ignorant of its features (like generator expressions) you would end up with better code?
sum(
all(
abs(x) >= 1 and abs(x) <= 3 for x in line
) and (
all(x > 0 for x in line) or
all(x < 0 for x in line)
)
for line in diffs
)
You no longer have to "jump back and forth" except one single time - you have to look to the end to see where line is coming from and then you can read the body of the main expression from start to finish.
People don't, in fact, read code from top to bottom, left to right; they read it by first looking at its "skeleton" - functions, control flow, etc - until finding the bit they think is most important to read in detail. That implies that "jumping back and forth" is a natural and necessary part of reading (and hence writing) code, and so is nothing to fear.
There is still a slight advantage to not having to jump around, but consider the costs: in Javascript, map and filter are methods on Array and some other types. So how are you going to implement them for your custom iterable type? Do you have to do it yourself, or write lots of boilerplate? It's easy in Python. It's not bad in Rust either because of traits, but what this all means is that to get this, you need other, heavy, language features.
In practice, you often know what a comprehension is iterating over due to context. In those situations, having what the comprehension produces be the most prominent is actually a boon. In these scenarios in Rust/JS you are left skipping over the unimportant stuff to get to what you actually want to read.
I agree with you that the one liner isn't a good example, but I do prefer the "left to right" syntax shown in the article. My brain just really likes getting the information in this order: "Iterate over Collection, and for each object do Operation(object)".
The cost of writing member functions for each class is a valid concern. I'm really interested in the concept of uniform function call syntax for this reason, though I haven't played around with a language that has it to get a feeling of what its downsides might be.
I was also thinking about UFCS. I do like it for its flexibility, but I did try it in Nim one time and was left feeling unsure. Unfortunately I now can't remember what exactly I didn't like about it.
People don’t, in fact, read code from top to bottom, left to right
100% this.
This false premise is also why a few (objectively wrong) people defend writing long essays: functions with hundreds of lines and files with thousands; saying "then you don't have to go back and forth to read it", when in fact, no one should be reading it like a novel in the first place.
Once you get used with list and dict comprehensions, they read just fine. Much like the functional approach is not really that readable for a newcomer either.
Not a single time did OOP talk about readability. That was not a point at all, so I don't know why you are all about readability.
It was all about having a language that the IDE can help you write in because it knows what you are talking about from the beginning of the line.
The issue with the horrible one-liner (and with your nicely split-up version) is that the IDE has no idea what object you are talking about until the second-to-last non-whitespace character. The only thing it can autocomplete is "diffs". Up until you typed the word, it has no idea whether sum(), all(), abs(), <, >, or for-in actually exist for the data type you are using.
If you did the same in Java, you'd start with diffs and from then on the IDE knows what you are talking about, can help you with suggesting functions/methods, can highlight typos and so on.
I think rust's iterator chains are nice, and IDE auto-complete is part of that niceness. But comprehension expressions read very naturally to me, more so than iterator chains.
I mean, how many python programmers don't even type hint their code, and so won't get (accurate) auto-complete anyway? Auto-completion is nice but just not the be-all and end-all.
Fair, I missed one word. You missed the whole blog post.
It's a big difference between writing code and writin APIs, tbh. If you write crap code that's your problem. If you write crap APIs it's the problem of anyone using your API.
The blog post is really about language design, because you definitely should not write a filter method for your custom iterable class in python; you should make it use the language's interface's for "being an iterable". Language design involves APIs offered by the language, but isn't really the purview of most people who write APIs.
If a suggestion on language design would gain something at the cost of readability, anyone should be very skeptical of that.
Those things together explain why I am evaluating the post mostly in terms of readability.
Is string length len, length, size, count, num, or # ? Is there even a global function for length? You won’t know until you try all of them.
This is Python basics, so the argument would be to optimize readability specifically for people who have zero familiarity with the language.
(The other examples have the same general direction of readability tradeoff to the benefit of beginners, this one was just simplest to pick here)
That's a valid tradeoff to discuss, if discussed as a tradeoff. Here it is not. The cost to readability for anyone with language familiarity appear to be not even understood.
The point of the article is about how IDE's can't validate certain things as you type them in this order. The example of a string length function could be replaced by any other API.
But, the reason for wanting the IDE to validate based on partially entered expressions is given as making it easier to follow the code for a person working left-to-right.
And it's not an invalid thing to want, but I expect the discussion to also include how it affects reading the code for a non-beginner.
It's got nothing to do with being a beginner. I've been working as a professional software developer for ~15 years now and still I have to use new libraries/frameworks/in-house dependencies quite frequently. I know how to get the length of a string, and so does the author of the article.
But that's why it's a simple example and nothing more, and it applies to everything else. We write left to right, and IDEs autocomplete left to right, so it makes sense for languages to be designed to work that way.
There's a lot of reasons why Java works much better with IDEs than python, and this is one of them.
Besides that, it is best practice to show problems on simple, easy to follow use cases that highlight exactly the problem in question without further fluff. It's expected that a non-beginner can abstract that problem into more difficult use cases, so I don't think OOP did anything wrong with choosing string length as an example.
The example of a string length function could be replaced by any other API
I don't know about that, len is a built-in -- like str, abs, bool. There are only a few of them and they're well known by people familiar to the language (which seems to exclude the article author). Their use is more about the language itself than about what to expect from a particular API.
In fact, most Python APIs that go beyond built-in usage actually look much more object-oriented with "left-to-right" object.method() calls. So this argument seems silly and goes away with some familiarity with that language.
The argument is not silly, it totally makes sense, and your point even proves that.
A lot of libraries use module-level globals and if you use from imports (especially from X import *) you get exactly that issue.
Yes, many more modern APIs use an object-oriented approach, which is left-to-right, and that's exactly what OOP is argueing for. If you notice, he didn't end the post with "Make good languages" but with "Make good APIs". He highlights a common problem using well-known examples and generalizes it to all APIs.
The auther knows full well that this blog post will not cause Python to drop the List comprehension syntax or built-in functions. What he's trying to do is to get people to not use non-LTR approaces when designing APIs. All the points he made are correct, and many are even more pressing in other languages.
For example, for a hobby project of mine I have to use C/C++ (microcontrollers). And this problem is huge in C libraries. Every function is just dumped into the global name space and there's no way to easily find the right function. Often I have to go to google and search for an external documentation or open up the header files of a project to find a function that does what I want, instead of being able to just follow the IDE autocomplete on an object.
And sure, if I know every library and framework I use inside out and memorized all functions, methods, objects, variables and fields, then it's easy, but unless you work 30 years in a bank where you maintain the same old cobol script for decades, that's not going to happen.
That's malpractice in most cases, and thankfully, becoming more rare to find in the wild. Any decent linter will shout at you for using star imports.
What he’s trying to do is to get people to not use non-LTR approaces when designing APIs.
Then he should have picked examples of APIs that break this, not use the built-in functions. Because as it reads now, it seems he is just against established conventions for purism.
this problem is huge in C libraries
yeah, one of my favorite things about python is that everything not in the language itself is either defined in the file, or explicitly imported. Unless, like mentioned, you have anti-patterns like star imports and scripts messing with globals().
He's using simple examples that everyone knows and understands instantly. It's like using a minimal test case to report a bug. In most cases a minimal test case is also nonsensical on its own, but it's used to show an issue that occurred in a more complex context without overloading the reader with useless garbage info that doesn't contribute to the point at hand.
I'll agree that list comprehensions can be a bit annoying to write because your IDE can't help you until the basic loop is done, but you solve that by just doing [thing for thing in things] and then add whatever conditions and attr access/function calls you need.
I'm kinda surprised that pretty much nobody who commented here seems to have understood the point of the post.
It wasn't about readability at all.
It was about designing APIs that the IDE can help you with.
With RTL syntax the IDE doesn't know what you are talking about until the end of the line because the most important thing, the root object, the main context comes last. So you write your full statement and the IDE has no idea what you are on about, until you end at the very end of your statement.
Take a procedural-style statement:
len(str(myvar))
When you type it out, the IDE has no idea what you want to do, so it begins suggesting everything in the global namespace starting with l, and when you finish writing len(, all it can do is point out a syntax error for the rest of the line. Rinse and repeat for str and myvar.
Object-oriented, the IDE can help out much more:
myvar.tostring().length()
With each dot the IDE knows what possible methods you cound mean, the autocomplete is much more focussed and after each () there are no open syntax errors and the IDE can verify that what you did was correct. And it you have a typo or reference a non-existing method it can instantly show you that instead having to wait until the end of the whole thing.
Andreste mai in vacanza prenotando il vostro alloggio in strutture che, mentre scegliete il vostro soggiorno al mare o in montagna, propongono case vacanze e appartamenti nei territori occupati illegalmente in Cisgiordania e Gerusalemme Est? Se la ri…
interessante, qualche anno fa avevo fatto un articolo simile (forse è da aggiornare ora): lealternative.net/2020/07/17/a… tutte queste realtà hanno pochissimo seguito e adesioni, io ho provato ogni tanto a usarle ma non erano praticamente mai presenti nelle città in cui mi servivano e quando trovavo qualcosa era a dei prezzi spesso inaccessibili.
Attualmente forse la cosa più efficace è cercare su Booking e poi, una volta trovato il posto giusto, cercarlo su internet per vedere se affitta le camere anche senza Booking ma con un proprio sistema di prenotazioni. Spesso facendo cosi si spende però di più perché, da quanto so, gli alberghi che si associano a Booking non possono mettere sul proprio sito stanze a prezzi più convenienti.
Infatti devi contattarli direttamente via mail o telefono e a quel punto ti fanno il prezzo che gli pare, non sono legati a niente. Questo vale di sicuro per Airbnb, dove ormai trovi non solo affittacamere occasionali ma anche agriturismi o affittacamere veri. Sinceramente booking per me non esiste neanche. Di conseguenza il mio suggerimento è usare Airbnb per avere un minimo di garanzie e qualche recensione e poi cercare il posto direttamente. Airbnb guadagna lo stesso e sta al gioco senza problemi, booking è più old-style stile tassisti ormai
eh si, l'unica è quello. Purtroppo dipende un po' dal tipo di viaggio, non sempre è semplice. Se si fa un viaggio singolo in una sola città si può provare a fare, ma già se si inizia a fare un viaggio itinerante con più alberghi/posti per più giorni inizia purtroppo a essere difficoltoso riuscire a organizzare e contattare tutti correttamente soprattutto se si va in posti dove non si parla la lingua locale...
At the very least my most played game ever isn't supported and never will be.
So if I go full linux i will just have to stop playing a game I played for almost 10 years and a game that was owned by a small game dev studio when I started playing. It sucks. I couldn't guess some Epic games would buy this game and then officially make sure it won't run on linux.
I tried it a few months ago and couldn't get it to work. May just have been me, but even if I, a semi tech literate person has problems with it, good fucking luck getting the broader population to use Linux. It is simply too hard for regular people to do stuff, that just works with windows.
Sure windows has it's issues, but they're issues 95% of people will never encounter. Instead they'll have an easy time installing software, and don't have to look at a database to figure out wether or not they can even play a game.
The only games that won't run are Battlefield and Cod, LoL, etc
Oh really ?
That's a bold statement.
Also I suppose it's my own fault for wanting to play competitive multiplayer games online on Linux ?
It's impressive because you probably hope for the same thing as me for gaming on linux but you are toxic as fuck and only think your type of games should be supported.
We are supposed to be in the same team but you shit on the games I want to play instead.
Honestly fuck you.
Edit : My god I shouldn't have watched your comment history. That AOSP comment my dude...
But dual booting still means using Windows even if it is just for gaming. Which is exactly what I fucking do.
I use W10 and PopOS as dual boot and play all I can on linux. I even just setup everything for secure boot to work properly on both OS.
But no I'm such a masochist for wanting to just continue ln playing a game like rocket league with my friends online. What a madman.
And it's also my fault if some big dev studios bought a game I liked and then said that linux players have too many cheaters and that they block this platform.
And then there is you on the sideline, all sneakering and enjoying the fact that another cannot play the games they love on their linux platform. So yeah I repeat it, fuck you for hoping the games I play dont get support.
From an organizational standpoint, it doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
The group will be split into four smaller groups, according to a New York Times report. One group will focus on AI research, another one on infrastructure and hardware projects, one on AI products, and another one on building out AI superintelligence, a hypothetical AI system that could outperform human intelligence on any and all scales.
I mean, they have different skillsets, a fair bit of that is going to be on decoupled timelines, they have different levels of risk, and the technical expertise is going to differ. One succeeding or failing isn't tightly coupled to another doing so. Sure, they all relate to one thing or another to something that has been called "AI", but that's a pretty broad group.
Under this scenario Russia would have military and economic control of occupied Ukraine under its own governing body, imitating Israel’s de facto rule of Palestinian territory seized from Jordan in 1967.
...
Witkoff, who is also tasked by Trump with bringing peace to the Middle East, is understood to support the idea, which the Americans believe circumvents barriers in the Ukrainian constitution to ceding territory without holding an “all-Ukraine” referendum.
I assume that also means that Russia would then send in state-sponsored terrorists in the guise of "settlers" to murder the Ukrainians and incrementally steal their land, and send in the army to slaughter them if they dare to fight back.
It isn't a question of stupidity. It's a question of power.
Without Western arms and armor to hold territory, both Israel and Russia can just seize the land and kill anyone who objects.
Ukrainians can know it's bullshit in the same way the Palestinians (or Armenians or Tutsis or Rohingra Muslims) can know they are getting a raw deal. But what are they going to do about it, except eat lead?
I haven't heard about thermodynamic computing before, but it sounds pretty interesting. As IEEE Spectrum explains , "the components of a thermodynamic chip begin in a semi-random state. A program is fed into the components, and once equilibrium is reached between these parts, the equilibrium is read out as the solution. This computation style only works with applications that involve a non-deterministic result ... various AI tasks, such as AI image generation and other training tasks, thrive on this hardware." It sounds almost like quantum computing to my layperson ears. [edit: fixed link]
A new era in computing is here! Thermodynamic computing, akin to probabilistic computing, harnesses noise for efficient problem-solving. Imagine a world where physics-based ASICs tailor solutions to specific needs.
If it makes AI cheaper then great because AI is a massive fucking waste of power, but other than that I am grossed out by this tech and want none of it.
StrangeMed
in reply to kinther • • •Nice share! Mistral also shared data about one of its largest model (not the one that answer in LeChat, since that one is Medium, a smaller model, that I guess has smaller energetic requirements)
mistral.ai/news/our-contributi…
Our contribution to a global environmental standard for AI | Mistral AI
mistral.ailike this
FaceDeer likes this.
sbv
in reply to kinther • • •like this
Fitik, Beacon, classic e FaceDeer like this.
unmagical
in reply to sbv • • •There are zero downsides when mentally associating an energy hog with "1 second of use time of the device that is routinely used for minutes at a time."
xkcd.com/1035/
Cadbury Eggs
xkcdArbitraryValue
in reply to unmagical • • •With regard to sugar: when I started counting calories I discovered that the actual amounts of calories in certain foods were not what I intuitively assumed. Some foods turned out to be much less unhealthy than I thought. For example, I can eat almost three pints of ice cream a day and not gain weight (as long as I don't eat anything else). So sometimes instead of eating a normal dinner, I want to eat a whole pint of ice cream and I can do so guilt-free.
Likewise, I use both AI and a microwave, my energy use from AI in a day is apparently less than the energy I use to reheat a cup of tea, so the conclusion that I can use AI however much I want to without significantly affecting my environmental impact is the correct one.
dohpaz42
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •Individually you’re spot on. Your AI use doesn’t matter. But, and this is where companies tend to leave off, when you take into account how many millions (or billions) of times something is done in a day (like AI prompts), then that’s when it genuinely matters.
To me, this is akin to companies trying to pass the blame to consumers when it’s the companies themselves who are the biggest climate offenders.
ArbitraryValue
in reply to dohpaz42 • • •dohpaz42
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •You’re right. But if I had to pick a why, I’d go with how microwaves at least provide a service for households by heating up food.
AI’s only viable service (at the time of this writing) is a replacement for viagra for techbros when they need to get an erection.
unmagical
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •On a "respond to an individual query" level, yeah it's not that much. But prior to response the data center had to be constructed, the entire web had to be scraped, the models trained, the servers continually ran regardless of load. There's also way too many "hidden" queries across the web in general from companies trying to summarize every email or product.
All of that adds to the energy costs. This equivocation is meant to make people feel less bad about the energy impact of using AI, when so much of the cost is in building AI.
Furthermore, that's the median value--the one that falls right in the middle of the quantity of queries. There's a limit to how much less energy a query to the left of the median can use; there's a significantly higher runway to the right of the median for excess energy use. This also only accounted for text queries; images and video generation efforts are gonna use a lot more.
ArbitraryValue
in reply to unmagical • • •null
in reply to unmagical • • •But do you actually know how much that is? Or are you just assuming it's a lot.
Victor
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •You should probably not eat things because of how much calories they have or don't have, but because of how much of their nutrients you need, and how much they lack other, dangerous shit. Also eat slowly until you're full and no more. Also move a lot.
We shouldn't need calculators for this healthy lifestyle.
The reason for needing to know which foods are healthy is because... well, we forgot.
ArbitraryValue
in reply to Victor • • •Victor
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •DarkCloud
in reply to sbv • • •like this
FaceDeer likes this.
null
in reply to DarkCloud • • •Ŝan
in reply to null • • •Maaji
in reply to sbv • • •like this
yessikg likes this.
FaceDeer
in reply to Maaji • • •null
in reply to Maaji • • •Maaji
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Maaji • • •Maaji
in reply to null • • •null
in reply to Maaji • • •Never?
lime!
in reply to Maaji • • •ganksy
in reply to sbv • • •In addition:
dream_weasel
in reply to sbv • • •salty_chief
in reply to kinther • • •like this
Fitik e FaceDeer like this.
tekato
in reply to kinther • • •like this
Fitik likes this.
Armok_the_bunny
in reply to kinther • • •like this
classic, yessikg e giantpaper like this.
Grimy
in reply to Armok_the_bunny • • •I did some quick math with metas llama model and the training cost was about a flight to Europe worth of energy, not a lot when you take in the amount of people that use it compared to the flight.
Whatever you're imagining as the impact, it's probably a lot less. AI is much closer to video games then things that are actually a problem for the environment like cars, planes, deep sea fishing, mining, etc. The impact is virtually zero if we had a proper grid based on renewable.
like this
FaceDeer e giantpaper like this.
Damage
in reply to Grimy • • •like this
yessikg e giantpaper like this.
Armok_the_bunny
in reply to Damage • • •like this
giantpaper likes this.
Rentlar
in reply to Armok_the_bunny • • •Seriously. I'd be somewhat less concerned about the impact if it was only voluntarily used. Instead, AI is compulsively shoved in every nook and cranny of digital product simply to justify its own existence.
The power requirement for training is ongoing, since mere days after Sam Altman released a very underehelming GPT-5, he begins hyping up the next one.
zlatko
in reply to Rentlar • • •Imacat
in reply to Damage • • •finitebanjo
in reply to Damage • • •Because the training has diminishing returns, meaning the small improvements between (for example purposes) GPT 3 and 4 will need exponentially more power to have the same effect on GPT 5. In 2022 and 2023 OpenAI and DeepMind both predicted that reaching human accuracy could never be done, the latter concluding even with infinite power.
So in order to get as close as possible then in the future they will need to get as much power as possible. Academic papers outline it as the one true bottleneck.
Valmond
in reply to finitebanjo • • •finitebanjo
in reply to Valmond • • •Academia literally got cut by more than a third and Microsoft is planning to revive breeder reactors.
You might think academia will work on the problem but the people running these things absolutely do not.
Valmond
in reply to finitebanjo • • •null
in reply to Damage • • •Because demand for data centers is rising, with AI as just one of many reasons.
But that's not as flashy as telling people it takes the energy of a small country to make a picture of a cat.
Also interesting that we're ignoring something here -- big tech is chasing cheap sources of clean energy. Don't we want cheap, clean energy?
like this
imecth likes this.
anomnom
in reply to null • • •TomArrr
in reply to anomnom • • •Yes, yes it did. And as far as I can tell, it's still belching it out, just so magats can keep getting owned by it. What a world
tennesseelookout.com/2025/07/0…
Leon
in reply to null • • •Valmond
in reply to Leon • • •Leon
in reply to Valmond • • •Valmond
in reply to Leon • • •Leon
in reply to Valmond • • •Valmond
in reply to Leon • • •Leon
in reply to Valmond • • •My comment is in the context of this
douglasg14b
in reply to Damage • • •That's not small....
100's of Gigawatts is how much energy that is. Fuel is pretty damn energy dense.
A Boeing 777 might burn 45k Kg of fuel, at a density of 47Mj/kg. Which comes out to... 600 Megawatts
Or about 60 houses energy usage for a year in the U.S.
It's an asinine way to measure it to be fair, not only is it incredibly ambiguous, but almost no one has any reference as to how much energy that actually is.
xthexder
in reply to douglasg14b • • •That's not ~600 Megawatts, it's 587 Megawatt-hours.
Or in other terms that are maybe easier to understand: 5875 fully charged 100kWh Tesla batteries.
taiyang
in reply to Grimy • • •I usually liken it to video games, ya. Is it worse that nothing? Sure, but that flight or road trip, etc, is a bigger concern. Not to mention even before AI we've had industrial usage of energy and water usage that isn't sustainable... almonds in CA alone are a bigger problem than AI, for instance.
Not that I'm pro-AI cause it's a huge headache from so many other perspectives, but the environmental argument isn't enough. Corpo greed is probably the biggest argument against it, imo.
fmstrat
in reply to Grimy • • •douglasg14b
in reply to Grimy • • •A flight to Europe's worth of energy is a pretty asinine way to measure this. Is it not?
It's also not that small the number, being ~600 Megawatts of energy.
However, training cost is considerably less than prompting cost. Making your argument incredibly biased.
Similarly, the numbers released by Google seem artificially low, perhaps their TPUs are massively more efficient given they are ASICs. But they did not seem to disclose what model they are using for this measurement, It could be their smallest, least capable and most energy efficient model which would be disingenuous.
xthexder
in reply to douglasg14b • • •Rhaedas
in reply to kinther • • •like this
classic e qupada like this.
rowrowrowyourboat
in reply to kinther • • •This feels like PR bullshit to make people feel like AI isn't all that bad. Assuming what they're releasing is even true. Not like cigarette, oil, or sugar companies ever lied or anything and put out false studies and misleading data.
Why wouldn't they release this. Even if each query uses minimal energy, but there are countless of them a day, it would mean a huge use of energy.
Which is probably what's happening and why they're not releasing that number.
like this
giantpaper likes this.
the_q
in reply to rowrowrowyourboat • • •like this
qupada likes this.
L0rdMathias
in reply to kinther • • •Someone didn't pass statistics, but did pass their marketing data presention classes.
Wake me up when they release useful data.
like this
qupada likes this.
jim3692
in reply to L0rdMathias • • •It is indeed very suspicious that they talk about "median" and not "average".
For those who don't understand what the difference is, think of the following numbers:
1, 2, 3, 34, 40
The median is 3, because it's in the middle.
The average is 16 (1+2+3+34+40=80, 80/5=16).
like this
qupada likes this.
HubertManne
in reply to jim3692 • • •FarraigePlaisteaċ
in reply to kinther • • •NotMyOldRedditName
in reply to kinther • • •There were people estimating 40w in earlier threads on lemmy which was ridiculous.
This seems more realistic.
Ilovethebomb
in reply to NotMyOldRedditName • • •Frezik
in reply to kinther • • •None of those advanced nuclear projects are yet actually delivering power, AFAIK. They're mostly in planning stages.
The above isn't all to run AI, of course. Nobody was thinking about datacenters just for AI training in 2010. But to be clear, there are 94 nuclear power plants in the US, and a rule of thumb is that they produce 1GW each. So Google is taking up the equivalent of roughly one quarter of the entire US nuclear power industry, but doing it with solar/wind/geothermal that could be used to drop our fossil fuel dependence elsewhere.
How much of that is used to run AI isn't clear here, but we know it has to be a lot.
wewbull
in reply to Frezik • • •...and they won't be for at least 5-10 years. In the meantime they'll just use public infrastructure and then when their generation plans fall through they'll just keep doing that.