![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://beehaw.org/pictrs/image/c0e83ceb-b7e5-41b4-9b76-bfd152dd8d00.png)
Their GPUs are already bricks. Just throw the GPUs.
Their GPUs are already bricks. Just throw the GPUs.
Hey look, the classic “America bad” comment on a post critical of China!
Are these people bots or something? It’s possible to be critical of both at different times.
While I agree, it makes connecting to localhost as easy as http://0:8080/
(for port 8080, but omit for port 80).
I worry that changing this will cause more CVEs like the octal IP addresses incident.
Edit: looks like it’s only being blocked for outgoing requests from websites, which seems like it’ll have a much more reasonable impact.
Edit 2: skimming through these PRs, at least for WebKit, I don’t see tests for shorthand IPs like 0
(and no Apple device to test with). What are the chances they missed those…?
Imagine how different the story would be if they compensated people for this data. “10% off Geforce NOW if you let us use your gameplay footage as training data!” (for example)
This is obviously cheaper and there’s way more data to train with, but it just continues to skirt a line in copyright law that desperately needs to be tested.
Honestly, regardless of what happens to Intel, I’m hopeful for Qualcomm providing a real alternative in the CPU space, especially an alternative as meaningfully different as using an entirely different instruction set. More diversity between competing products in the space can only be a good thing since it gives consumers more meaningful choices to make when deciding between products.
People talk at the urinal?
People on Chrome adding Reddit to their Google searches already use Google. People not using Google who don’t search “Reddit” are going to see fewer Reddit results.
No, this won’t kill Reddit, but it certainly isn’t helping them get more traffic.
Joke’s on Reddit. I’ve been blocking their results in the search engine I use for months!
I wonder if this will end up being pursued as an antitrust case. If anything, it’ll reduce traffic to Reddit from non-Google users, so hopefully that kills them off just a little faster.
Looks like the article requires an account. Is there an archived version?
GN’s charts usually compare against a few gens of somewhat comparable products, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a 12th gen CPU or two on the charts. I’d also expect to see some 7000 series Ryzen chips and maybe a 5000 series one. I believe they normally include these older gens for people who skipped a gen or two to see what they’d get out of an upgrade.
Your lack of imagination
I don’t know why you think these ideas were mine, but I do work for a rather large company that has invested a lot of resources looking for solutions using these models. These ideas came from people far smarter than I.
The rest of your comment has so little to do with what I said that I’m inclined to believe it’s AI generated.
You’re right. Once it settles into its niches and the hype dies down, it won’t be overhyped anymore because everyone will have moved on.
I’ve been working with generative AI for years now and we still struggle to solve real world problems with it. It isn’t useless or anything. It’s way too unreliable, and this isn’t one of those things where time will solve it - it’s being used to solve problems that have no perfect solutions, like human interfacing and generating culturally-appropriate and visually-accurate images. I’d expect it to improve at those tasks over time, but the scope needs to drop from every problem humanity has ever faced to the problems that these models are good at solving.
As much as I dislike Nintendo, the Switch is an excellent console despite its hardware. It’s no surprise that it’s been as popular as it has been for so long. These days though, there are a lot of competitors in the handheld space that have much better hardware, so it really maintains its position due to a combination of branding and the game exclusivity.
I’m curious what their next console will be. I probably won’t buy it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was also a huge success.
There are emergencies the adults at the school won’t understand. This has happened a few times to my spouse, where the nurse/teachers kept brushing off issues they didn’t understand, ranging from things like asthma to strep throat.
Otherwise, I agree that the phones should be put away during class.
Ironically, I had friends in school who had come from juvy. I guess you could say prision fed into school instead? I’d love to ask them their opinions on that statement though and see how similar to prison school really was.
As far as I can tell, that person is just rage baiting. If they genuinely believe school is the same as prison, having visited one myself (not for myself), all I can say is they should actually visit one and see for themselves what a prison is actually like.
To add, this was many years ago now, but my school let me continue to the next grade despite getting failing grades in multiple of my classes. There’s a strong “no child left behind” mentality (at least in the state I grew up in), which imo is a good thing, but the approach is to just pass people anyway rather than try to address why they are struggling.
I’m not sure why I see people treating banning smartphones in class like child abuse or something. The only explanation I have is that it’s a cultural thing. Obviously, if used appropriately, a smartphone is a valuable tool, but this is only if they are used appropriately, which some students will do and some won’t (and this varies as well from school to school and class to class). Where I went to school, a significant number of students did not use them appropriately during class, so not allowing them made sense since they distracted from the lesson.
So, why do I have so little confidence that they’ll be used properly? Some people are posting anecdotes about their time as teachers in this thread, so I’ll post one from the student’s perspective. Despite smartphones not being allowed in my classes in high school, people used them anyway. Why? The teachers wouldn’t notice, or some might just not say anything. I played the heck out of one mobile game with my friends in both of my history classes, and nothing ever happened. I knew people who’d be listening to music during class too, and completely ignore the lecture itself. Almost everyone with a phone out used it as a distraction from class, not as a tool to help them learn. Despite there being a rule against them, I’d estimate more than half of the people I went to school with used them during class anyway.
So why didn’t the teachers enforce it more strictly? My guess is because it wasn’t safe. Many of my friends carried knives at school for self defense. There were a lot of violent students, ranging from fights in the hallway to students being part of a gang. To be clear, this wasn’t by any means the majority of the student body, but it wasn’t an insignificant portion of it either.
The violence escalated dramatically after the 2016 election, where students (who were understandably upset about the result) got up and threatened all the white people in the school. I had graduated by then, but I knew people who had to barricade themselves in a room with a mob of angry knife-wielding students on the other side of the door. Many of the students in the room weren’t even old enough to vote. One teacher left the school because of all the threats she’d received.
Also, not sure how common it is to have a “senior prank day” at other schools, but we had one every year. The “pranks” ranged from spray painting threats to teachers on the outside of the gym, to destroying school property. Once they had to put classes on pause while a company came out to replace the locks on all the doors since the “prank” was to destroy the locks so the doors couldn’t be opened.
This school was pretty tame too, compared to some of the schools I’d heard stories of. One teacher I talked to at a different school had stories about all the times some student threatened her or pulled a gun out on her or whatever, and it honestly just sounded like hell.
Anyway, I wouldn’t say I blame the kids for this behavior, and while I have strong opinions against feed-driven social media, I don’t think it was a major contributor to these behaviors (this was before social media was as big as it is now). I think it really comes down to parenting, whether the parents are just bad at raising kids, or they don’t have time or resources to properly raise their kids, or their kids have needs they don’t know how to (or refuse to) satisfy. Regardless, a teacher can only do so much, so rather than trying to correct behaviors in students at the risk of their own lives, I think a lot of them just put up with it for the sake of the students who do want to learn.
So if the rule is going to be broken anyway, why have a rule against smartphones? It sets the expectation of students regarding smartphone usage, and gives teachers an opportunity to enforce that rule when they feel it’s appropriate (and safe) to do so.
Edit: I should also add that I don’t think most schools are this violent. This school was exceptionally bad, but it wasn’t as uncommon as you might think to have a school this violent.
Not sure if you’re aware so I’ll mention it anyway, but as far as I know, downvotes in Beehaw communities don’t federate to Beehaw (as in aren’t applied here - you might see them on your instance though, not really sure). That being said, your comment does, so you’ve made a “pseudo-downvote” anyway.
My understanding is that the 5th amendment may apply as well if the device is locked and they need a passcode to access it. After a quick search, it isn’t clear to me whether or not that’s the case though.
I’m not sure I see the issue. Is there something wrong with them reporting on Ukraine’s Kursk region? Doesn’t seem like an illegal border crossing to me.
Two can play at this game.