deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Imo signal protocol is mostly fairly robust, signal service itself is about the best middle ground available to get the general public off bigtech slop.
It compares favorably against whatsapp while providing comparable UX/onboarding/rendevous, which is pretty essential to get your non-tech friends/family out of meta’s evil clutches.
Just the sheer number of people signal’s helped to protect from eg. meta, you gotta give praise for that.
It is lacking in core features which would bring it to the next level of privacy, anonymity and safety. But it’s not exactly trivial to provide ALL of the above in one package while retaining accessibility to the general public.
Personally, I’d be happier if signal began to offer these additional features as options, maybe behind a consent checkbox like “yes i know what i’m doing (if someone asked you to enable this mode & you’re only doing it because they told you to, STOP NOW -> ok -> NO REALLY, STOP NOW IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO ENABLE THIS BY ANYONE -> ok -> alright, here ya go…)”.
i think they mean future devices, not previously sold.
either way the thread is 99% invalid criticism of what is afaict one of the best projects of our generation
Google could snap its fingers tomorrow and lock down the ability to unlock bootloaders.
only valid point in the post afaict
is the machine the problem? that seems more like a philosophical or semantic debate.
the machine is not fit for the advertised purpose.
to some people that means the machine has a fault.
to others that means the human salesperson is irresponsibly talking bs about their unfinished product
imo an earnest reading of the logs has to acknowledge at least potential evidence of openai’s monetisation loop at play in a very murky situation.
It’s not any more conductive
quick note: you’re likely correct the conductivity may not be higher, but the conductance likely is.
in other words, i second your suggestion of heavier duty foil (for EM reasons, skin effect etc) alongside the mechanical factors you mentioned.
tldr: VM->RDP seamless render
WinApps works by: Running Windows in a Docker, Podman or libvirt virtual machine. Querying Windows for all installed applications. Creating shortcuts to selected Windows applications on the host GNU/Linux OS. Using FreeRDP as a backend to seamlessly render Windows applications alongside GNU/Linux applications.
(ok i see, you’re using the term CPU colloquially to refer to the processor. i know you obviously know the difference & that’s what you meant - i just mention the distinction for others who may not be aware.)
ultimately op may not require exact monitoring, since they compared it to standard system monitors etc, which are ofc approximate as well. so the tools as listed by Eager Eagle in this comment may be sufficient for the general use described by op?
eg. these, screenshots looks pretty close to what i imagined op meant
now onto your very cool idea of substantially improving the temporal resolution of measuring memory bandwidth…you’ve got me very interested with your idea :)
my inital sense is counting completed L3/4 cache misses sourced from DRAM and similar events might be alot easier - though as you point out that will inevitably accumulate event counts within a given time interval rather than an individual event.
i understand the role of parity bits in ECC memory, but i didn’t quite understand how & which ECC fields you would access, and how/where you would store those results with improved temporal resolution compared to event counts?
would love to hear what your setup would look like? :) which ECC-specific masks would you monitor? where/how would you store/process such high resolution results without impacting the measurement itself?
CPU and Memory use clock speed regulated by voltage to pass data back and forth with no gates between
could you please explain what you mean by no gates?
Reading up on RDP
Microsoft requires RDP implementers to obtain a patent license
there it is. good info to dig up jrgd, well done! shame we had to scroll so far in the thread to find these actual proper, highly relevant details.
well, everyone has to pick their battles, and perhaps RHEL just couldn’t fight this one out.
but imo i’d much rather see VNC get some upgrades under RHEL than continue the ever increasing microsoft-ization of linux
deleted by creator
edit: nvm i re-read what you wrote
i agree it does mostly fulfill the criteria for libre software. perhaps not in every way to the same spirit as other projects, but that is indeed a separate discussion.
h̶o̶w̶ ̶m̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶m̶u̶n̶i̶t̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶d̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶?̶ ̶i̶ ̶s̶u̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶m̶a̶y̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶a̶s̶t̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶a̶r̶r̶i̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶.̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶l̶i̶g̶h̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶w̶r̶o̶n̶g̶.̶.̶.̶
Thanks for the reference, from there I found the very impressive original Nature paper “A RISC-V 32-bit microprocessor based on two-dimensional semiconductors” fantastic stuff!!
From the paper, that’s almost a 40x improvement on comparable logic integration!
Some notes from the paper:
Typically this is where people like to shit on the design “cos muh GHz” etc, but tbf not only will people doubtless work on improving the clock speeds etc, but there’s plenty of applications where computation time or complexity isn’t so demanding, so i’m just excited by any breakthrough in these areas.
if this is a full RISCV implementation in 2D materials this is a genuinely impressive breakthrough!!
afaict the topic of the article seems to be focusing on trust as in privacy and confidentiality
for the discussion i think we can extend trust as in also trusting the ethics and motivation of the company producing the “AI”
imo what this overlooks is that a community or privately made “AI” running entirely offline has the capacity to tick those boxes rather differently.
trusting it to be effective is perhaps an entirely different discussion however
feeling like you’ve been listened to can be therapeutic.
actionable advice is an entirely different matter ofc.
Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.
which they can do in private any time they wish, without any of the fanfare.
if they actually believe in opensource let them opensource windows 7 1, or idk the 1/4 of a century old windows 2k
instead we get the fanare as they pat themselves on the back for opensourcing MS-DOS 4.0 early last year (not even 8.0, which is 24 years old btw, 4.0 which came out in 1986).
38 years ago…
MS-fucking-DOS, from 38 years ago, THAT’S how much they give a shit about opensource mate.
all we get is a poor pantomime which actually only illustrates just how stupid they truly think we are to believe the charade.
does any of that mean they’re 100% have to be actively shipping “bad code” in this project, not by any means. does it mean microsoft will never make a useful contribution to linux, not by any means. what it does mean is they’re increasing their sphere of influence over the project. and they have absolutely no incentive to help anyone but themselves, in fact the opposite.
as everyone knows (it’s not some deep secret the tech heads on lemmy somehow didn’t hear about) microsoft is highly dependent on linux for major revenue streams. anything a monolith depends on which they don’t control represents a risk. they’d be negligent if they didn’t try to exert control over it. and that’s for any organisation in their position. then factor in their widespread outspoken agenda against opensource, embrace, extend, extinguish and the vastly lacking longterm evidence to match their claims of <3 opensource.
they’re welcome to prove us all wrong, but that isn’t even on the horizon currently.
1 yes yes they claim they can’t because “licensing”, which is mostly but not entirely fucking flimsy, but ok devils advocate: release the rest, but nah.
yes they lost the battle, now they’re most likely aiming to win the war.
ah fair enough. i think that was the initial confusion from myself and perhaps the other user in this discussion. i didn’t realise your use cases.
it’s always a fun topic to discuss and got me thinking about some new ideas :)
afaik mmW is FR2
5G FR1 is sub x-band microwave
tar pits target the scrapers.
were you talking also about poisoning the training data?
two distinct (but imo highly worthwhile) things
tar pits are a bit like turning the tap off (or to a useless trickle). fortunately it’s well understood how to do it efficiently and it’s difficult to counter.
poisoning is a whole other thing. i’d imagine if nothing comes out of the tap the poison is unlikely to prove effective. there could perhaps be some clever ways to combine poisoning with tarpits in series, but in general they’d be deployed separately or at least in parallel.
bear in mind to meaningfully deploy a tar pit against scrapers you usually need some permissions on the server, it may not help too much for this exact problem in the article (except for some short term fuckery perhaps). poisoning this problem otoh is probably important