The Octonaut @ TheOctonaut @mander.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

663

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, because Lemmy isn't social media. It's a link aggregator.

Social media requires you to know who the other people are, or at least that the identity and personality of the other people posting matters to what you consume. Apart from one or two attention-seeking exceptions, I almost never notice who posted something.

In fact, Lemmy being a Reddit clone, you may remember Reddit stirring controversy for years as they did try to become social media - adding avatars, followers functions, chat groups, etc.; none of which really suit the platform or its audience. Perhaps as the audience has changed they've gotten what they wanted.

If "social media" is just the ability to comment anonymously on Internet content and argue with strangers, then the guest book on my Geocities soccer page was social media.

How about if the idle animation is Gal Gadot in full IDF regalia singing "Imagine"?

Only vaguely conscious of this guy from my nice safe seat abroad but IIRC he wasn't exactly "establishment" in the first place? He can't have that many friendly colleagues after basically completely changing his policies once in office. Never mind the reputed reason for that happening.

Quite the opposite, my workplace is pretty fun and we definitely don't need to couch jokes in emoticons for safety. Maybe this is the same thing that requires people these days to use sarcasm tags.

Please don't wink in a work context

While I sympathise, hat's not what imposition means. For better or for worse, both Discord and Reddit got where they were by being good for what they offered.

I'd almost agree in a way about Reddit - they basically imposed a shitty app after building their base. But apart from the username change, Discord is as shitty or great as it always has been.

Imposes?

You just not use it right?

The point is that no branch was ever called a slave branch, just as no audio copy was ever called a slave copy. One does not direct the other in the same way that master and slave implies. Usually quite the opposite.

Oh and master-slave usually refers to hardware infrastructure, not programming. Where, as you mentioned, client-service is the equivalent, or parent and child.

Master in branch meant the same as the master of an audio track or video. We haven't all stopped saying "remaster" or "masterpiece".

As it turns out, there are software developers from outside the country with people whose grandparents-grandparents were chattel slaves, and they name things without the same baggage. It's Gulf of America stuff, but for the 'good guys'.

Sorry, you've spent 75 years arming your own government to the point of making this impossible. In the name of "security". Do you feel secure yet?

I can't remember if it's an official Asimov book or not, but one of the Foundation books set far beyond even the main series has an archaeological mission finding thousands of ceremonial hard white ceramic bowl-funnels and speculating on their significance to these incomprehensibly ancient peoples.

Mambo No 5

It reads like regurgitating dehydrated phlegm

Edit:

Anyone want to state their opinion?

Germans: "Das is der inkorrect opinion Herr Irlandisch"

It's certainly better than "Open"AI being completely closed and secretive with their models. But as people have discovered in the last 24 hours, DeepSeek is pretty strongly trained to be protective of the Chinese government policy on, uh, truth. If this was a truly Open Source model, someone could "fork" it and remake it without those limitations. That's the spirit of "Open Source" even if the actual term "source" is a bit misapplied here.

As it is, without the original training data, an attempt to remake the model would have the issues DeepSeek themselves had with their "zero" release where it would frequently respond in a gibberish mix of English, Mandarin and programming code. They had to supply specific data to make it not do this, which we don't have access to.

No, not every purchase is taxed, and not every purchase that is is taxed at the same rate.

These rates are set by individual countries (because "Europe", lol) and can change year to year. For example Ireland doesn't tax books, basic food staples, children's clothes, medicines. Heating fuel is taxed but was set to a reduced rate during the cost of living crisis. Other countries will have different priorities.

VAT ensures that even those who have a large amount of wealth accumulated without "income" also contribute to society.

A model isn't an application. It doesn't have source code. Any more than an image or a movie has source code to be "open". That's why OSI's definition of an "open source" model is controversial in itself.

I know how LoRA works thanks. You still need the original model to use a LoRA. As mentioned, adding open stuff to closed stuff doesn't make it open - that's a principle applicable to pretty much anything software related.

You could use their training method on another dataset, but you'd be creating your own model at that point. You also wouldn't get the same results - you can read in their article that their "zero" version would have made this possible but they found that it would often produce a gibberish mix of English, Mandarin and code. For R1 they adapted their pure "we'll only give it feedback" efficiency training method to starting with a base dataset before feeding it more, a compromise to their plan but necessary and with the right dataset - great! It eliminated the gibberish.

Without that specific dataset - and this is what makes them a company not a research paper - you cannot recreate DeepSeek yourself (which would be open source) and you can't guarantee that you would get anything near the same results (in which case why even relate it to thid model anymore). That's why those are both important to the OSI who define Open Source in all regards as the principle of having all the information you need to recreate the software or asset locally from scratch. If it were truly Open Source by the way, that wouldn't be the disaster you think it would be as then OpenAI could just literally use it themselves. Or not - that's the difference between Open and Free I alluded to. It's perfectly possible for something to be Open Source and require a license and a fee.

Anyway, it does sound like an exciting new model and I can't wait to make it write smut.

I understand it completely in so much that it's nonsensically irrelevant - the model is what you're calling open source, and the model is not open source because the data set not published or recreateable. They can open source any training code they want - I genuinely haven't even checked - but the model is not open source. Which is my point from about 20 comments ago. Unless you disagree with the OSI's definition which is a valid and interesting opinion. If that's the case you could have just said so. OSI are just of dudes. They have plenty of critics in the Free/Open communities. Hey they're probably American too if you want to throw in some downfall of The West classic hits too!

If a troll is "not letting you pretend you have a clue what you're talking about because you managed to get ollama to run a model locally and think it's neat", cool. Owning that. You could also just try owning that you think its neat. It is. It's not an open source model though. You can run Meta's model with the same level of privacy (offline) and with the same level of ability to adapt or recreate it (you can't, you don't have the full data set or steps to recreate it).

I didn't put any words in your mouth... I really don't understand how you're not getting that. I said you understand that it's not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.

Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).

And that specifically is the part that I'm arguing has no basis in fact - you're asking me to provide evidence that something wasn't going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn't help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.

I genuinely don't know how you interpret "I'm sure you understand the difference" as "you actually believe this". But sure, I'm manipulating your mind.

The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn't a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.

It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than "that's what Catholics are like" despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.