Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KE
Posts
0
Comments
355
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I don't think it's a snide joke about what people call it. I think OP has no idea that it's called Neapolitan ice cream, not Napoleon ice cream, so there's no joke at all. If it were called Napoleon ice cream, I suppose it's a joke of sorts, but not one I consider very good.

  • It's got a picture showing it using 1.1 GB of memory, which for Windows 11 and 10 is really good, but it's also a testament to how absurdly bloated Windows is that even a stripped down version can't get under 1 GB.

  • It's pretty funny. The article says that this is where money is being spent next (it implies it's government funded), but the author acts like that's a bad thing.

    Unless new installations are spurred on by subsidies or power purchase agreements, oppressed profitability could eventually halt Germany's solar expansion, Schieldrop said.

    Instead, focus is likely to move onto improvements that will make more use of the energy produced, such as investments in batteries and grid infrastructure.

    It's wild. This guy is suggesting that they subsidize solar installation, in the exact same article where he's saying there's too much solar. Either the article is disingenuous or he's an absolute idiot.

  • I'm perfectly happy to pay for things I value, especially if the alternative is being forced to pay with my time and attention. The evidence also doesn't entirely support your argument, since plenty of places that you pay for still try to show ads.

  • The only thing I value in Windows 10 or 11 over 7 is better multi monitor support, and even that is not a giant issue. It's faster, uses less resources, is better organized, and looks nicer, especially nicer than 10 that looks like a lazy highschool kid spent all of a day on it.

  • "Interestingly, this effect cannot be explained by differences in participants’ experience with generative AI models, as that variable is insignificant in the mode"

    When predictors are correlated, which is most likely the case here, this analysis cannot separately estimate their effects. The software will end up splitting the total effect size between the two predictors. Without describing collineariry between predictors, it's not possible here to judge whether experience with AI is truly unimportant or the analysis is merely incapable of spotting the effect.

    As for eroding confidence in reviews, this will make it worse, but I already put next to no stock in user reviews anymore. You don't need AI to make a good human-like review that lies about a product, and there are plenty of those around.