I strongly disagree. Every response longer than one line of code or longer than 1-2 sentences on a non-trivial task, has at least inaccuracies or mistakes. When working with something AI has created, I had to go in and fix it manually in 100% of those cases. That’s why I limit the use of AI to only type-ahead suggestions, as I can easily verify them and don’t waste more time than creating the result manually.

I agree, the ecosystem seems to be focusing too much on hype and not enough on a strong and secure foundation. I’m still hoping for the best but I feel must more hopeful towards Linux on mobile devices. They are moving at an excruciatingly slow pace, though. Not enough resources and hands.

I didn’t say they need to rip something out. I didn’t say their current efforts to open up weren’t valid. I specifically said that I don’t know whether it would have made sense to start with reduced requirements.

I just stated that they didn’t “happen” to only support Google. I simply acknowledged how they knew exactly that the standard they were writing would only be matched by one vendor as they were writing it.

Google just happened to be the only company meeting those requirements

I don’t know. They designed the requirements in a way that only Google met them. It didn’t “happen” to meet them after the fact.

It’s like demanding yellow hard hats on a construction site. Sure, they are safe and highly visible. Would it make sense to allow black hard hats as well if it means not locking into a single vendor and try pushing for high vis while having a stronger base? And also working around the issue with a vest? I don’t know the answer to that but it’s clear that they have made a conscious decision to move into the situation that they now find themselves in.

Isn’t graphene having a challenging future because they have vendor locked themselves into pixel phones and said vendor is pulling the rug by not providing drivers going forward?

No, that’s ridiculous.

This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: […] © by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity;

As is stated, the call is processed locally in the user’s device. If that holds true, there is no recording and no third party processing going on. Your point does not make sense.

That’s a real world issue. AIs training on each other’s output and devolving because of it. There will be a point when vendors infringing on user content and training their AIs with it will leave them worse off.

It’s easy to train a model to do exactly what you want and have the seeming “personality” that you want. It’s just incredibly expensive. You need to vet and filter everything that you use to train the model. That’s a lot of person hours, days, years. The only reason the models act the way they do is because of the data that went in to train them. If you try and fit the model after the fact, it will always be imperfect and more or less easy to break out of those restrictions.

Also, revolt self hosting is broken. The web call functionality (WebRTC) is being rewritten but that effort is stale and out of the box it simply does not work. There is no real documentation about this either. It just won’t work and you need to invest a lot of effort to figure out why. The moment self hosting properly works, I’ll give it another shot. Not being able to connect without a fat client is a show stopper for me. There’s no way I can get enough traction for my groups if the barrier to switch is higher than a sheet of paper.

When self hosting all the shortcomings you mentioned are perfectly acceptable for me.

Don’t shoot the messenger. The regulations are pretty draconic. I have to ensure the training for that every year.

Seemingly one of the contributors has visited a disputed region and logged into GitHub from there. By law (export controls) Microsoft must not provide service to that place. So some automatism flagged the account and also the organic maps repo. So far so normal. But either Microsoft dragged it’s feet in communicating and resolving the issue or the organic maps team was not doing their part in the process. Doesn’t matter, the outcome is still worth it.

That’s what containers are for. Fucking up the container won’t fuck up the host. That was the best decision in self hosting I’ve done. Even that one virtual machine feels weird and uncomfortably legacy now but it needs to interact with hardware in a certain way that just won’t fully work with docker.

No, I said they hadn’t demonstrated it. But 95% is close enough, I stand corrected.

In that case I stand corrected on the whole orbit bit. Thanks for taking the time.

I didn’t say “a little” money. It may be important or critical for the business but from a technical perspective, demonstrating how it can safely bring loads up and down decides whether the whole concept is actually feasible. That’s when people will start to get excited.

As far as I understood it, SpaceX uses the word “orbit” liberally. If it reaches the hight where an orbit would be possible, that’s “being in orbit” for them. In an actual orbit, the rocket would not fall back down again in an hour or so without active breaking. If my understanding is incorrect, I’m happy to be corrected. And even of that was achieved soon, it’s still all without demonstrating that the starship could actually carry a load and return it safely. Not even an inexpensive dummy load. All SpaceX is showing in their live feeds are empty cargo holds that fill up with hot gases and fumes during reentry.

I think the average person gets it right. It’s a nice feat to catch the booster and it will save money. But that’s a side quest. The main quest of getting an actual load to orbit and beyond is still pretty far away. At least compared with the official time line where they wanted to achieve much more than that three years ago.