Copy/paste instead of linking because Lemmy doesn’t like me>

I can shad a light on that! […]

When we’re in a fast paces dialogue with a high level of rapport I start speaking my thoughts before they’re finished - and it happens that a thought starts out as “my opinion is …” And in the middle transfers to “oh it would be way more interesting what your thoughts on this are!”.

Or I’m mentally distracted and fall back to the monologue voice …

Either way: the flow of the sentence already started as a statement and now I want to make sure that it’s clear that your input is wanted and appreciated - and instead of saying “and perhaps that sounded like a statement but please treat it as a question” I fall back to “question mark.”

Oh I can shad a light on that! Hope it’s not en pair with the shelter animal hunting though.

When we’re in a fast paces dialogue with a high level of rapport I start speaking my thoughts before they’re finished - and it happens that a thought starts out as “my opinion is …” And in the middle transfers to “oh it would be way more interesting what your thoughts on this are!”. Or I’m mentally distracted and fall back to the monologue voice …

Either way: the flow of the sentence already started as a statement and now I want to make sure that it’s clear that your input is wanted and appreciated - and instead of saying “and perhaps that sounded like a statement but please treat it as a question” I fall back to “question mark.”

In the sense of okhams razor it’s also possible that you’re just more sensibilized to the term.

It would be a fun experiment to next time first check YouTube before looking it up elsewhere, just to eliminate the chance that the information vector is before the search.

From there then come various other possibilities (from behaviour based prediction to Lemmy profe linking).

Just to widen the search area!

I can’t argue about the historic relevance; The article you linked is from 2020, the issues from early 2019. The original matrix developing company seems to have deep ties as described, yes.

But:

If you follow the very first link I. The article you can read the history of the matrix protocol itself. It shows where and when the matrix protocol was separated from this company and what the status quo seems to be:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(protocol)#History

From this it seems clear to me that the information from this article are by now obviously outdated with KDE and Mozilla two big mentioned community projects that are involved.

Wikipedia as primary source is not well suited, but the fact that the article linked to it themselves seem to show that they relied on the back then status quo.

In short: in 2017 they would be absolutely right, in 2020 there were still huge issues - but by now those are mostly addressed or are unknown.

For the non link clickers. I give it interesting enough:

On 05/10/2017 07:40, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:

Does anyone have a pointer to an authoritative source on why

10/8 172.16/12 and 192.168/16

were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? …

The RFC explains the reason why we chose three ranges from “Class A,B & C” respectively: CIDR had been specified but had not been widely implemented. There was a significant amount of equipment out there that still was “classful”.

As far as I recall the choice of the particular ranges were as follows:

10/8: the ARPANET had just been turned off. One of us suggested it and Jon considered this a good re-use of this “historical” address block. We also suspected that “net 10” might have been hard coded in some places, so re-using it for private address space rather than in inter-AS routing might have the slight advantage of keeping such silliness local.

172.16/12: the lowest unallocated /12 in class B space.

192.168/16: the lowest unallocated /16 in class C block 192/8.

In summary: IANA allocated this space just as it would have for any other purpose. As the IANA, Jon was very consistent unless there was a really good reason to be creative.

Daniel (co-author of RFC1918)

There isn’t a global law about age verification they countries could be exempt of. It’s individual countries doing it.

And on top of that the laws are different from what I’ve seen, in the UK for example you have to fullfil certain criteria to fall under that law. But frankly it seems to be a mess in my opinion.

This is what an age verification service says about it:

https://www.yoti.com/blog/understanding-age-verification-online-safety-act/

In the very first post on this thread I pointed out that I’m not talking about this specific case at all.

To your last point I fully agree!

For the first point: that’s how I understood you - what I failed to convey: adultsshould fall victim more in cases like this because parents can be a protective shield of a kind that grown-ups lag.

Children on their own stand easy less of a chance but are very rarely on their own.

And to be honest I think it doesn’t change result of requirements for action both in general but respectfully for language based bots, both from a legal as well as an educational point of view.

I see your point but there is one major difference between adults and children: adults are by default fully responsible for themselves z children are not.

As for your question: I won’t blame the parents here in the slightest because they will likely put more than enough blame on themselves. Instead I’ll try to keep it general:

Independent of technology, what a parent can do is learn behavior and communication patterns that can be signs of mental illness.

That’s independent of the technology.

This is a big task because the border between normal puberty and behavior that warrants action is slim to non-existent.

Overall I wish for way better education for parents both in terms of age appropriate patterns as well as what kind of help is available to them depending on their country and culture.

Sadly there is no answer for you available because many of the processes around this are hidden.

I can only chime in from my own amateur experiments and there are answer is a clear “depends”. Most adjustments are made either via additional training data. This simply means that you take more data and feed it indi an already trained LLM. The result is again an LLM black box with all its stochastic magic.

The other big way are system prompts. Those are simply instructions that already get interpreted as a part of te request and provide limitations.

These can get white fancy by now, in the sense of “when the following query asks you to count something run this python script with whatever you’re supposed to count as input, the result will be a json that you can take then and do XYZ with it.”

Or more simple: you tell the model to use other programs and how to use them.

For both approaches I don’t need to maintain list: For the first one I have no way of knowing what it’s doing in detail and I just need to keep the documents themselves.

For the second one it’s literally a human readable text.

Saved me a click, highly appreciated!

You won’t get the AI stuff through. I’m working on a machine like you described and drilled a hole in it to provide power to a 3070 as the power supply wasn’t beefy enough (and server power supplies are too expensive compared to a hole).

This is the first generation where I can play around with local LLMs from what I can tell - even used the hardware for that is way more expensive :(

Friend, there is only one kind of dumb question: those that are statements with a question marks at the end of are simply a vehicle to place a statement.

And even those are fine by me if the asking being realizes this within the discussion. (“Why are we allowing women to vote if they are that much dumber than men?” is a stupid question in my book - and even that can lead to “oh wow I always just assumed that to be true but (data/argument) made me realize that I was wrong!”. Rare but can happen…)

Oh the trackers are against that because they fight all the way against people working against the community and I guess that they just see more leeches coming in this way.

Personally I don’t care about the individual background as long as it’s at least a break even in the community.

Good luck!

Just as a heads-up: expect some pushback just for asking.

In general buying accounts is frowned upon on all private trackers I’m aware of, including the rule to ban bought accounts on sight.

Several private trackers give out VIP status for people buying seed boxes through them though I guess there are some where you’d get an account in the first place through this.

It all depends on your goals. Personally I wouldn’t trust account sellers. I don’t see a way for them to get accounts without it being quite easily identifyable for the respective pages.

Personally I went the “hard” route but never tried to push into the cabal tier private trackers.

Just remember to not screw your account within the first hours by not taking care of your ratio and the trackers rules.

But this is an American outlet reporting on science…

“”"

Earth's pole has drifted toward 64.16°E at a speed of 4.36 cm/yr during 1993–2010 due to groundwater depletion and resulting sea level rise

“”"

That was two clicks away - so you’re right: the property science wasn’t some in fridges or football fields or any of the US scales.

One could argue they a reading service should not alter the thing that’s read. Android is not a quantum state!

Understandable, he was right very often and “only” his tone was…unfiltered. but I ignore the “was right” part when using that phrasing :)

I’d like to imagine that this would be close to the phrasing Linus himself would choose, although I could be off of course!

I really don’t enjoy Linus’ content without context I have to admit.

He was an absolute dipshit back then and he’s one of the few people I’ve read about who not only acknowledged that but also put effort into changing it - and succeeded.

Yeah the newer mails are not as funny to third parties anymore but I’m really happy for him and especially the kernel devs around him.

Oh yeah I see…

As some old philosopher once said: “shit’s fucked, yo”.

Seems to be appropriate here.