I’ve been using Linux for a long time and I don’t know any of this really.

Basically, home directory is for everything, unless some instructions say some other path.

Probably not that much honestly.

The resource intensive part is the initial training.

Tuning later is much less so.

People have been talking about “post scarcity” since forever.

Yes, in the far distant future people will be able to have things they need and not have to work. AI will also exist in that future.

However, I don’t think anyone believes that future will arrive in the next decade.

This isbprobably a philosophical question that i dont know the answer to, but its still a waste.

This is really just a guess but… I think “agent” in this context means a personalised AI.

Training gen AI models requires huge amounts of resources. Its not practical to train an AI for your personal use.

Creating an agent is something like, taking an existing model, asking it to keep your entire browser history in mind while you ask it to do your homework.

IMO its actually one of the big limitations of gen AI, but somehow the word is supposed to mean the opposite. As in, the current approach has reached a dead end requiring exponentially more resources for less and less improvement. So because we can’t make a model that just knows or learns everything, we have to make agents that know lots about specific things.

These comments really illustrate how badly Lemmy has become a homogenised echo chamber.

Users just subscribe to these generalised binary concepts like religion = terrible, and any attempt to demonstrate the nuance is downvoted.

Not sure what youre getting at.

Obviously it depends how good and how bad.

Also, there going to show both - but the frequency of each will depend on their assessed likelihood that im going to click and the revenue generated if I do so.

Is it only me that finds personalised / targeted ads to be very poorly personalised and targeted ?

Sorry what?

I think I’ve misunderstood you because this is certainly possible, and I’m sure you’re aware of that.

Seems like a pretty good explainer:

https://bbc.com/news/articles/c5ylk9r336zo

However, i infer from your comment that youre incredulous?

Why would the BBC report it if its not true?

Ah, no… the King has very publicly stripped him of his title and evicted him from the royal property in which he resided.

While it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that Andrew would want to do this but it does surprise me that his handlers allowed him to do it so brazenly.

Even not-particularly-wealthy people can go to a resort / brothel in South East Asia and see 40 prostitutes in a few days if that’s their desire. Everyone involved would very happily turn a blind eye.

However, doing it on a state visit is essentially the production and provision of kompromat.

It’s interesting that the bangkok post has chosen to publish this now.

Thailand has strict Lèse-majesté laws prohibiting any negative commentary about royalty. I wonder if that applied to foreign royalty and if so, whether it no longer applies now that Andy is no longer a “Prince”.

sorry what crowds ?

Yeah, but fine print isn’t always binding.

You can leave someone in Port if they were dawdling back from the bar.

You can’t leave an 80 year old woman alone on an uninhabited island in the heat with no water.

This actually seems to happen semi-regularly in Queensland. This is certainly not the first time.

You’d think they’d have some kind of infallible double redundancy tag out system.

One wonders how often this might happen and go unreported.

Edit: oof. Sorry, I just read the article. Looks like she didn’t die because she was left behind. Rather, she fell off a cliff and died which is why she didn’t board the boat prior to it’s departure. Still. Wouldn’t hurt to have some awareness of how many passengers had re-boarded the boat.

I have a 32 inch 1080p monitor as my secondary

I honestly find this hard to believe. I have 2x 32 inch monitors on my desk and in 1920x1080 they’re ugly to the point of distraction.

if you are going big why spend the money on a 4k one if you are just going to use scaling anyway?

4k isn’t that expensive. you can get 32 inch 4k monitors for a few hundred dollars.

Scaling is not the same as reducing the resolution.

There’s this thing called scaling that allows you to see things in an appropriate size but higher definition.

Anyone who uses spreadsheets regularly wants the extra real estate. Anyone who works with complex documents wants the extra real estate.

It’s not about more dots on your 24 inch, it’s about larger monitors that can display more stuff simultaneously. Instead of 4x 1080p monitors you can have 2x larger 4k monitors. Offer this to anyone who makes money by staring at a screen all day and they’ll tell you it’s worth it.

I didn’t even know this was a thing before reading that article but I’m going to engage in some wild supposition.

I’m going to suppose that many of those in the outgoing presidents cabinet were heavily invested in companies involved in industries such as production of construction materials, transport of those materials, and of course construction.

I also predict that in the not so distant future they will find significant deficiencies in the buildings which have been constructed, such as defective materials, insufficient concrete density, insufficient foundations, and so on.

What about the vast majority of people who stare at screens for work?

Frame rates aren’t really important, it’s making things more readable in less space.

The cost / benefit is a completely different dynamic.

Subjective obviously.