And unlike a regular Linux distro, you’ll have zero leftover systemd units or config files floating around in your FHS dirs. (You’ll have the binaries for Gnome sitting in /nix/store until you do a GC, so you can still quickly switch back if you want to.)

I’m always on unstable. Any time I try to stick to stable, I invariably need something-or-other that’s only on unstable.

These guys live in a bubble, huffing each others’ farts

You must have done something bad to deserve this. Trying thinking about everything bad you’ve ever done. That’ll help.

The seal looks like this:

Code completion is probably a gray area.

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

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

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

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

The trunk metaphor doesn’t work very well in Git, because branches aren’t long-lived containers of sequential commits the way they are in SVN. There is no “root” commit that is guaranteed to have a consistent relationship with main, because branches are just names attached to a commit and can be reassigned at will.

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

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

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

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

“We have made a commitment to our employees that all of these efficiency gains, and especially the applications of AI, should also, to some degree, come back in their pay cheques so that they are fully … incentivised [and] aligned with the investors, to drive these changes through the company.”

All… to some degree

I hate this timeline so much

Like AI companies care about business ethics

only a tool

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

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

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

“This is sensitive data that could do a lot of damage if it fell into the wrong hands”, said the people paying a for-profit company to collect the data

Lemme share the tea for anyone who isn’t aware:

• Owl house is a show by Dana Terrace that ran on Disney
• It slowly developed into big pro-LGBTQ themes
• Disney panicked, cancelled the show, claimed it was unpopular despite excellent ratings
• Dana Terrace left with a bunch of others to form an independent studio
• Their first show (Knights of Guinevere) features a floating amusement park that rains garbage all over the workers below, and robots that have orbs on their heads that produce a silhouette strikingly similar to that of Mickey Mouse

To solve climate change, we need two fundamental beliefs:

• There is an urgent problem
• We are capable of taking meaningful action

This graph proves that we can take meaningful action. That proof is essential to our success.

I don’t understand the people who insist that while there is an urgent problem, we have never done anything to address it, we’re currently doing nothing to address, and we will never do anything to address it.

What is the point of that belief?

Perhaps the certainty of failure is more comforting than the vulnerability of working towards a success that isn’t guaranteed.

To add to the other replies: This is what AI is for. Not to replace labor, but to enhance the ruling class’ ability to exploit labor.

As a convenient side effect: If you use AI to spam people with bug reports, you’re basically DDoSing them… unless they then decide to use AI to help triage the avalanche. And wouldn’t you know it, Google just happens to sell AI to help you solve this problem they made for you!

“Nice FOSS project you got there. It’d be a shame if something happened to it.”

And also also: If FOSS in general turns into a ghost town… where are you gonna turn to get that boilerplate code you need to do a common task? That’s right, AI baby! All roads lead to boiling the Great Lakes so Nvidia can pay itself back.

Those additional requests will reuse the existing connection, so they’ll have more bandwidth at that point.

Feels more like a home manager thing to me

I see what you’re saying, but the fact that it can be ambiguous is actually what makes it so useful to fascist organizers.

They thrive on phrases that allow them to wink at each other when they want to, but claim innocence if someone calls them out.