Balder @ balder1991 @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

312

Joined

2 yr. ago

Who wouldn’t be mad considering the amount of money OpenAI is burning. They’re already taking a huge risk and I believe mostly out of ideology, believing this time it’ll be the singularity simply because ChatGPT has this ability to fool humans into thinking there’s some humanity there.

If you all work harder we’ll be able to fire you FASTER and increase my bonus!

Fixed it for you

Ironically the world is full of people who like to think about solutions to problems. But those in power won’t put them to solve those because it’s not part of the political game.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ok, so I did some checking and Firefox uses a custom license from Mozilla, which says the open source code can be freely mixed with proprietary code, as long as you disclose and also distribute the open source files you’ re using.

This is much more permissive than some other open source licenses. LGPG, for example, only allows this mixing if you use the open source code as a library that needs to be separate from the main proprietary binary.

That said, Librewolf apparently licenses all its source code in the same Mozilla license, which means no issues here.

Nowadays that’s incorrect if you’re in the European Union.

What @bizarroland@fedia.io is saying is not correct, because it depends on the license. For example, GPL software requires that ALL the source code that uses some GPL code to be released as GPL too. That’s why some people avoid GPL at all costs.

Other licenses, such as LGPL allow you to link your proprietary code with open source parts and only release the code of the open source part (along with any modifications you did to it).

I’m pretty sure a $10 one time payment won’t pay for the costs of development that Firefox requires.

Open source only works when there are people motivated enough and skilled enough to maintain something for free or when the organization managing it has another source of income.

None of these small browsers can make significant changes to the original project. A browser nowadays is a super complex bloated thing that requires too much resources to maintain. If even M$ abandoned their engine to go with Chromium (because it was probably costing them a lot of resources to keep compatibility with the evolving standards, security fixes etc.) what hope is there for small companies? Arguably Apple’s Safari has significant differences compared to Chrome, but we’re talking about Apple…

People thinking this is a solution are gonna get disappointed eventually. For now, Firefox is the only alternative product that has been maintained for decades.

I feel like this sort of thing should be more modular. Maybe on Linux we could in theory have multiple packages that could have different implementations and the browser UI would just use the underlying packages with their specific extras on top.

That would also align well with the Unix philosophy of each component “doing one thing well” and composing small tools to achieve complex tasks.

Splitting things add a different level of complexity (public APIs, deprecations, different versions, etc.) but it would make the web much more free, since we could have different individuals maintaining different packages and no organization would have too much control over the web.

I believe this is possible because we have very complex stuff such as entire Desktop Environments on Linux that are made up of multiple packages and each package just do a well defined thing and build on top of each other to create a “whole” experience in the end.

This summarizes it well: https://www.wheresyoured.at/wheres-the-money/

But the hype isn’t about any other form of AI. It’s just OpenAI and a few other companies trying to copy them.

Indeed, we just have to wait until venture capital realized no one’s getting their money back from this. It’ll all crumble down like the world is ending.

That’s not the worst. It is burning billions for the companies with no signs of them ever becoming close to profitable.

Ironically, Google might be accelerating its own downfall as it tries to copy the “market”, considering LLMs are just a hole in its pocket.

Could it work?

Yes, but it would require:

• A redesigned memory controller capable of tiering RAM (which would be more complex).
• OS-level support for dynamically assigning memory usage based on speed (Operating systems and applications assume all RAM operates at the same speed).
• Applications/libraries optimized to take advantage of this tiering.

Right now, the easiest solution for fast, high-bandwidth RAM is just to solder all of it.

And I’d have thought the potential customers segment are exactly the Mastodon users.

Yeah, I don’t care about the materials my coffee maker use, but I hope the company that makes them does care.

But the article doesn’t really have a point, or at least I can’t see it. It starts like the choice of tech is not something that matters to users implying they’re all the same, then finishes with:

your job is to pick the ones that fit your use case—not because they’re trendy, but because they’re the right tool for the job.

I think the author just wanted to point out that defending a programming language for all purposes is not very smart (and it’s not something a senior engineer would do anyway), but it ended up a bit confusing.

In case the website wouldn’t let you save it. I don’t think the Instagram app allows you to save posted photos, for example.