trungaczne
The thing is, things have value in society partly because human efforts were involved in its making. It's not just about the end result; people still go to concert on top of listening to studio recordings for example, and people still watch humans play chess even though it's clear that good enough algorithms can beat the best humans easily. Technology like these which takes away too much immediate effort (hours needed to create the product) and long term effort (decades of training) are inherently absent of underlying value that I spoke of. Of course, if a person is only interested in consumption, it matters not how the "thing" is created.
Much of the sense of doom I have comes from the inherent erosion of this human effort element in the creative process. Whether we like it or not, the availability of mass produced content naturally threatens crafts themselves. After all, nobody wants to spend a few decades on their skills only to have their creation compared to an AI generated image produced in a few seconds.
I understand there are a lot of hypes around these technology to "humanity" but I have yet to see it. It just feels like more power consolidation to billionaires (especially when done as ClosedAI). There are artists who have tried to incorporate these but they have always felt the need to willingly not label their work as AI-generated or AI-assisted to sell (but still leaves in enough details for keen observers to tell it's AI touched).
As a whole, it just feels wrong. The most optimistic (and reasonable) take I have seen is "Just wait and see". It might feel like a non-argument, but it's the only realistic take between the hyped up techbros and the doomer cult (admittedly, I might belong to the latter group).
I think one of the most worrying thing for me is that regardless of how this plays out, this technology has only added more complexity to our society. That people are divided into camps about how they feel about the technology is simply a symptom about how much uncertainty there is in the future. This last bit will be a personal quarrel, but I personally lose any last desire to have children seeing the AI advancement. It's not right creating sentient life in an age where every year people have to play lottery to see whether technological advancement has deemed their life long effort unworthy.
I have this feeling that humanity as we know it will die out within the next few decades. It's bleak thinking I'll have to distract myself with sports and other hobbies while observing the end of mankind.
Spending all of one's life in the prison that is schooling, then the industry, chasing that fleeting dream that human efforts would bring some meaning to life. All gone. Disappeared in the blink of an eye by the so called force of "progress", whatever that means.
A few weeks ago I thought to myself that maybe if I'm to be worthless, I'd probably pick up a few new hobbies. But which hobby do I take? Even the best of artists who spent decades mastering their skills can have it stolen in minutes by a bot. I'd learn a language, but it seemed obvious to me that translation and voice technologies are at a level that we should be seeing excellent real time translation apps within the next year. Why do anything at all?
The past few months I've been mulling over some dark thoughts. It's cliched to speak out loud like this, but really, what can we do? We are worthless.
The incognito default tab says that your activities are still visible websites. The incognito mode even explains that other people using the same device won't see what you browsed - which is the primary use of it anyway. I don't know what is the concern here - are people angry that a mode which doesn't promise untrackability doesn't give untrackability?
> If you look at it you can launch a Google search directly from the url bar or from the "new tab" page.
What is this meant to to poke at? You can change what the search bar does to another search engine (in fact I believe Duckduckgo is also one of the choices in a new install of chrome).
> When you are logged in Google, your own browser is logged with a special profile icon.
Doesn't Firefox also have the same browser sync service? It's a useful feature to track your browser tabs unless you're security conscious or paranoid (or both).
There's a difference between _not_ understanding what a browser does and misinterpreting what it does, which is what this entire post is.
Moreover a lot of the "bloat" that comes with Rust code isn't because it's more performant. Neither C++ and Rust try to be faster languages (after all, the optimization tricks you can do with your program is limited to what you can do with Assembly and its cousin, C), they try to be safer by providing more abstractions and restrictions (compile time checks).
The code in the OP does use memory fences. Are you implying that their implementation are incorrect?
If anything, the insane censorship, hivemind of r/politics is more toxic.
But I guess the latter is "quiet" so it's alright. No discussion makes the best discussion.
Advantage (of using tmux on top of i3):
When you spin up a new window with i3, it doesn't retain the previous's current working directory. There are some hacks to make it kind of work, none of which work nicely. With tmux it just works.
tmux has synchronized panes. It allows you to send same keystrokes to multiple terminals at once. This is useful for managing multiple host machines at once, i.e. ssh'ing into different machines at checking certain logs.
Disadvantages:
Double the amount of keybindings you need: one set for i3, one set for tmux. i3 allows you to active a mode where keystrokes are 'forwarded', so theoretically you can use the same keybindings for both, although it is very annoying if you forget to active this mode since you're now creating i3 windows instead of tmux panes and have to clean them up.
* Form validation/data sanitisation code
* Translation/internationalisation
* Data (de)serialisation
Also you can do fancy things like server-side rendering, although Google is capable of searching SPAs now. I don't know much about SEO.
The argument for less code sharing is that if you are working with a lot of teams and service-based architectures, there are some merits to duplicate your code and keep them redundant, to 1) enable hiring from more diverse backgrounds and 2) reduce communication/maintenance friction needed when you make changes to components would otherwise be shared.
Curious, how many threads were created last year?
Also as a user I cannot bear to use Firefox. I recently retried it (can't recall the version, IIRC it's the first version they introduced multiprocessing) and it still underperforms: I experienced (sub second) lag on UI interactions whereas I wouldn't using Chrome.
It sounds like a necessary use case to me. While most people would probably not use it, that doesn't invalidate its existence. Most people would probably not touch any low level code either way.
I don't think everyone would listen to a person flinging insult, even if their argument has some basis. I wouldn't listen to a person who rely on bad rhetoric either.
Edit: MemSQL too is a columnar store