The point of a policy is to make a decision and then communicate that decision, so that you don't end up in a lengthy argument (or make inconsistent decisions) each time a particular situation arises.
You're right that it won't stop anyone doing harmful things with AI - all it does is codify what is and isn't considered acceptable by a project, and make it easier to justify rejections.
If a project wants to continue evaluating submissions on a case-by-base basis (and has the manpower to do it without the support of a policy) then that's entirely their choice, of course.
Suspend / resume? I'll settle for "keyboard works".
(From what I've learned so far, some magic incantation is required to convince Linux that a Lifebook E559 is a laptop not a tablet. I'm finding I have way less patience with these side-quests as I get older.)
That laptop has an 8th gen Intel processor which should make it completely compatible with the Linux kernel, yet surprisingly it’s not. https://linux-hardware.org/?probe=2ec391ffdc
Did Fujitsu choose an obscure component or interface?
Even on random ARM boards, it's not usually the CPU that's the problem. (It's generally drivers for everything else; eg. a sensor hub that should tell you when a laptop is in tablet mode)
Yeah, my implication was that the 8th gen CPU's platform controller hub should be supported. I should have explicitly rather than implicitly stated that.
Plenty of people have already said join a gym. I'll build on that and say try and find one that offers group classes - anything from the Les Mills line up, for instance. For several years until Covid struct, I used to do Body Combat twice a week, along with occasional Cx Works and Body Pump. A year before I started doing all of that it had never occurred to me that I might want to set foot in a gym!
In the most difficult stages of my life I've found that exercise raised my energy levels and left me more able to tackle the things I needed to face - and the friends I made through group classes helped as well.
Look for other kinds of in-person group activities (if you play an instrument, open mic nights, retro-computing meets or hackspaces), and give them a go - even if they're not the kind of thing you usually enjoy - be prepared to be surprised!
I've had a vague idea rattling around in the back of my brain for a while now, for some kind of endorsement system using public keys and signatures, so I can apply an endorsement to a particular site (perhaps with some kind of hash of the content so that it expires if the site changes), and get recommendations from others doing the same. When visiting a new site I can see a reputation score based on how many people have endorsed it and how much overlap there is between me and them. Users would also be able to endorse each other, and exclude either other from the algorithm, too - so hopefully networks effects would form organically around topics of interest - and more loosely between topics.
archive.org + website + linkhut search + username? (Endorsements can work by having the link of ln.ht profile itself being part of another user's Linkhut profile)
For example: Suppose you went to fluxer.gg (Open source Discord alternative that I found cool)
You can even endorse me by having my username linkhut be within your linkhut profile for example and I think I am seeing some social aspect of it in the frontpage of linkhut as well although I don't particular appreciate that right now.
Linkhut also is open source/have public API's
I found Linkhut only yesterday fwiw but its really cool and want to vouch for it. So does this work for the use case that you are mentioning?
Plus another point about Linkhut which I have talked in another comment is the note functionality. It allows me to reason (why?) I liked a particular website of say any project or any person and allows me to add words to it as well. This might be the feature I like the most because it allows me to use words to sort of actually have word-of-mouth for any cool things that we find on internet.
And this way you can also find reasonings for other websites that a person may've vouched for in a way too. I found this whole idea really elegant.
Edit: Oh btw there is also the concept of tags. So suppose you wanted more discord alternative. You could search #discord and it can for example lead you to stoat, matrix etc. from other people too.
I am not sure if there is already an extension that does it but an extension could be made to really simplify some aspects of it. I definitely feel this and there is some maybe small community on linkhut so you're not starting from scratch and also the merits of linkhut in general seem to me be good enough for average person to use.
It sounds really good - though obviously less automated than what I had in mind. What's needed is something with less friction - which could be achieved using a browser extension - but also needs something to prevent shilling and other forms of abuse. (Or, more to the point, a method by which any user who shills can be easily canned by other users.)
> though obviously less automated than what I had in mind. What's needed is something with less friction - which could be achieved using a browser extension
Yes, I completely agree with that but I suppose making a browser extension (for linkhut) is infinitely easier than the previous attempt and something which is more easily doable
There is already an extension which can do the first part of adding a website into linkhut simpler (its named linkput[0]) for firefox and its open source. had to search it up.
> but also needs something to prevent shilling and other forms of abuse. (Or, more to the point, a method by which any user who shills can be easily canned by other users.)
I am not quite able to think of what you mean by that but I do think that there are some ways to do it but its a problem that internet faces at large of abuse in general and its a careful line between privacy and abuse.
That being said, I am happy to help you find this cool project haha :D
I think that if you build something like an extension for linkhut, it would be interesting so good luck with making that hopefully! Glad I could help.
> I am not quite able to think of what you mean by that but I do think that there are some ways to do it but its a problem that internet faces at large of abuse in general and its a careful line between privacy and abuse.
My main goal is that my deciding that someone's recommendations aren't valuable to me should only affect the recommendations seen by people with similar interests to mine. There's not as much objective truth about what's valuable content and what isn't as many people would like to believe: I have no interest in seeing some influencer-led product recommendation but my niece very well might want to see that. Meanwhile she'd have no interest at all in some deep-dive into TMDS signalling and TERC4 codes!
My gut feeling is that, if we could get that system right, it would effectively "shadow ban" (for want of a better term) anyone whose content you don't want to see - but just for you and (to a lesser extent) those who hold your recommendations in good standing.
(I should also mention that my original idea here wasn't so much about discovering new stuff as getting an at-a-glance idea of whether a given page has high-quality content or just low-effort surface-level SEO-farming slop - in an age where the former is being drowned out by the latter.)
There are two pillars to managing RAM with virtual memory: the obvious one is is writing one program's working set to disk, so that another program can use that memory. The other one - which isn't prevented by disabling swap - is flushing parts of a program which were loaded from disk, and reloading them from disk when next needed.
That second pillar is actually worse for interactivity than swapping the working set, which is why disabling swap entirely isn't considered optimal.
By far the best approach is just to have an absurd amount of RAM - which of course is a much less accessible option now than it was a year ago.
OOM killers serve a purpose but - for a desktop OS - they're missing the point.
In a sane world the user would decide which application to shut down, not the OS; the user would click the appropriate application's close gadget, and the user interface would remain responsive enough for that to happen in a matter of seconds rather than minutes.
I understand the many reasons why that's not possible, but it's a huge failing of Linux as a desktop OS, and OOM killers are picking around the edges of the problem, not addressing it head-on.
(Which isn't to say, of course, that OOM killers aren't the right approach in a server context.)
> I understand the many reasons why that's not possible
Isn't the only reason that the UI effectively freeze under high memory pressure? If the processing involved in the core parts of the UI could be prioritized there's no reason for it not to work?
I don't understand why we can't have (?) a way of saying "the pages of these few processes are holy"? (yes, it would still be slow allocating new pages, but it should be possible to write a small core part such that it doesn't need to constantly allocate memory?)
This is effectively what macOS does. It presents any end user GUI programs (or Terminal.app if it's a CLI program) to elect to kill by way of popup with the amount of memory the application is consuming and whether or not it is responsive.
Not a bad system, but macOS has a fundamental memory leak for the past few versions which causes even simple apps like Preview.app, your favorite browser (doesn't matter which one), etc. to 'leak' and bring up the choose-your-own-OOM-kill-target dialog.
Yeah I think SSD / NVME makes all the difference here - I certainly remember XP / Vista / Win 7 boxes that became unusable and more-or-less unrecoverable (just like Linux) once a swap storm starts.
I still have a dusty old XP box here with PageMaker 7 on it.
As long as you don't need transparency effects it's still plenty capable.
I used to use it with an Agfa Accuset imagesetter - and in that role it was more capable than InDesign, since it exposed all the options in the PPD, whereas InDesign would expose only a subset.
To quote TFA: "...outputs strictly designed to farm green squares on github, grind out baseless bug bounties, artificially inflate sprint velocity, or maliciously comply with corporate KPI metrics".
If code becomes essentially free (ignoring for a moment the environmental cost or the long term cost of allowing code generation to be tollboothed by AI megacorps) the value of code must lie in its track record.
The 5-day-old code in chardet has little to no value. The battle-tested years-old code that was casually flushed away to make room for it had value.
You're right that it won't stop anyone doing harmful things with AI - all it does is codify what is and isn't considered acceptable by a project, and make it easier to justify rejections.
If a project wants to continue evaluating submissions on a case-by-base basis (and has the manpower to do it without the support of a policy) then that's entirely their choice, of course.
reply