Does it matter if one performs a system update while Reflector is running?
Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works Posts 67Comments 1,035Joined 2 yr. ago
Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @sh.itjust.works
Posts
67
Comments
1,035
Joined
2 yr. ago
Not sure how often you reboot
Usually every day.
maybe once a week would be sufficient?
Whether it's sufficient is mostly dependent on how volatile the mirrors are, which I'm not entirely aware of.
What the fuck. That’s horrifying. I also though that every sensible workplace bans the use of AI.
I don't see it as being different than any other tool. Aside from the ethical discussions, and assuming that it is being used as if it were simply a tool, if it increases productivity, then what's the issue?
If you have the layout memorized, then what's physically shown on the keys doesn't really matter — usually switching the keyboard layout in the OS is pretty easy.
Yeah, I agree — it feels unnecessarily ambiguous.
Scaled sort on subscribed.
Facebook marketplace is the only reason I still have a Facebook account.
Imo, it likely was/is due to the voting system — and, in a similar sense, awards. Redditors want to increase their Karma scores and seem to, at least subconsciously, view it as clout. So, they'll create posts with the intent of farming these points — ie they post things that they know will get a specific response from the masses. What also doesn't help, and is something that Lemmy similarly suffers from, is that there generally is no established consensus on how votes should be used. An upvote could mean agreement, or that a post is funny, or that it's good quality, or that it's on topic for a community, etc. A downvote could mean that the person disagrees with the post, or that they think that it isn't relevant or they simply don't like the OP. In reality, all that votes do, at the fundamental level, is tell the algorithm where it should place posts (a personalized recommendation algorithm changes this a bit, but the effect is essentially the same) — a post with a large upvote to downvote to ratio gets shown higher up and, by extension, more than one with a smaller ratio. This creates a sort of feedback loop where the posts that get farmed for upvotes get shown more. People don't want their post to be buried, so they'll only post what they think will get upvotes. And since upvotes are usually used for things that illicit an "agreement" response, only posts that people agree with will be shown.
The solution to these issues, imo, is to create an obvious standard for how votes are used and change how they're interpreted by the algorithm. Imo, Facebook was on the right track with how they were using emojis as the voting method. People generally react to posts with emotion, and an emoji is a good representation of that. You could potentially still have an up/down form of vote (alongside the emotional voting options), but it would be standardized to only be used as a metric for relevance/importance/correctness. This could be enforced by moderation, if votes were publicly viewable, by allowing moderators to remove people that are vote brigading (not including emotional votes). Emotional votes probably shouldn't be considered by the algorithm so that emotional bias can be avoided. Or, at the very least, there should be different algorithms that take these voting types into account I'm different ways (eg if you only want funny posts, you could sort to primarily get posts with a laughing reaction). In addition to this, also removing the gamification aspect (not showing (at least not publicly) total scores on profiles).
The only reason I still have a Facebook account is because of marketplace. I wonder how feasible it'd be to run some form of decentralized alternative to Facebook marketplace.
I'm not well versed on the subject of "BYOVD", but I would think the use of opensource drivers circumvents that vulnerability.
Currently, I just use GBoard, but I'm following the development of Florisboard rather closely.
Fair point. I believe I was under the impression that this was an app rather than a served webpage. I suppose one can easily verify this by looking at how the "For You" algorithm works within the browser — all the code for functionality would be sent to the browser; though, it could potentially be obfuscated, which might be a pain.
ok... so that just shows they're idiots.
And if that's the case, one should explain why that is rather than trying to twist the truth to fit a narrative.
there was not much radiation because most of it was scattered EVERYWHERE. and the radioactive material was very shortlived. Chernobyl is still very hot, especially in the immediate surrounding areas and nothing like after being nuked as the radioactive material left behind is very long lived
I agree.
This post appears to show that they're arguing that nuclear bombs "aren't that bad", as it's missing the important context that they're actually talking about the safety of nuclear power — or, rather, they're arguing that nuclear power isn't as dangerous as people might think — by using the lingering radiation from the nuclear bombings as an example.
I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that their argument is sound, but this post is bordering on disinformation.
The Higgs mechanism has been theorized to give mass to elementary particles [1]. That is not to say that the total of inertial mass of a non-elementary massive object is due to the Higgs Boson.
To make it as simple as possible
Too simple, imo. It simplifies to the point of becoming incorrect.
Higgs makes it hard to push something.
One is called inertial mass (what we feel due to the Higgs mechanism)
The Higgs mechanism has been found to give mass to elementary particles only (short of neutrinos) [3]. This is important to note, as the mass of hadrons is far larger than the sum of their constituent elementary particles [4]. The rest, and vast majority, is found in the bound energy (eg the Strong Interaction) of the elementary particles (eg quarks) [1][2].
Regarding "Inertial mass", I want to note the following definition for clarity:
Inertial mass is a measure of an object's resistance to acceleration when a force is applied. [5]
Higgs makes it hard to push something. Gravity makes it hard to lift something.
The Higgs interaction contributes to both. Mass due to the Higgs interaction is a component of inertial mass, given that the Higgs boson gives mass the elementary particles contained within [3]. Inertial mass is a measure of an objects inertia (ie its resistance to acceleration when a force is applied) [1][2].
Note that the concept of "lifting" only applies in a gravitational field when a force is able to be created by pushing off of a surface — the resistance to the "lift" being created by the objects weight. If one is in free-fall, for example, the effects of gravity are no longer apparent given that one has no reference to the fact that they are falling.
the other is called gravitational mass (what we feel due to gravitational attraction between two masses).
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here, but I suspect you are perhaps referring to the following excerpt(s) from Wikipedia:
Active gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's gravitational flux [1]
Passive gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's interaction with a gravitational field. [1]
I've personally never heard the term "gravitational mass" before, but it could be found from the above two statements, or more succinctly stated:
Gravitational mass is the "m" in F = GmM/r2 (Newton's law of universal gravitation) [2]
They are usually the same so the distinction is usually ignored.
This statement is rather dubious. Simply put, there has simply not been found any empirical difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass. [1]
I don’t actually know what the higgs field is.
I wouldn't be comfortable getting into the details of the actual "Higgs field" is, nor the Higgs boson, as I am not confident in my understanding, but, for the sake of the meme, the following excerpt from Wikipedia should suffice:
via the Higgs mechanism, [the Higgs boson] gives a rest mass to all massive elementary particles of the Standard Model, including the Higgs boson itself. [source]
I assumed it was gravity.
Gravity can be understood as the attractive force that two massive objects impart on eachother [1.1] — the strength of the gravitational force imparted by one object onto another is proportional to the mass of the former object [1.2]. Do note that this is a simplification. Gravity, as far as it is currently understood, is quite a bit more complicated than this (I am primarily referring to General Relativity) [1].
I was assuming that the image was confusing the term "weight" with "mass" (a completely forgivable and understandable mistake for a layman, given that both are equal on earth — give or take the variance in Earth's gravitational field [2.2])). If weight was intended to be a separate term, then it's just incorrect. Weight is the term given to the force that objects in a gravitational field impart on others when they are not accelerating (by "not accelerating" I mean, for example if one looks at the Earth, the object is still with reference to the surface of the Earth) [1.1], whereas mass is the term for the measure of an objects inertia [2.3][3]. Relativity shows that mass is equivalent to energy [4]. In SI, weight is measured in Newton's [1.2] and mass is measured in kilograms [2.1].
As far as my current understanding goes, the majority of mass derives from the binding energy between particles; only a small portion of the mass is due to the higgs interaction.
It's normal enough that it comes with the Systemd Service that runs on boot. The ArchWiki also makes mention of it.