douglasg14b @ douglasg14b @beehaw.org

Posts

2

Comments

67

Joined

2 yr. ago

It would be neat for Lemmy to have something like it. It's a great way to self fund in an engaging way.

There probably needs to be a foundation or something that can distribute funds to instances though to prevent heavy consolidation by way of simple popularity based funding 🤔

Obsidians really good with lots of notes and linking them together as well as adding metadata to them.

It really depends on your use case. The plug-in ecosystem is also quite rich.

Yes, QUITE a bit.

Obsidian has a significant community plugin ecosystem to start. It also uses markdown which you have control over, simple files, so it's entirely portable and not tied to obsidian. It has a lot of features geared towards personal knowledge management and linking knowledge together.

Two different use cases IMHO. I don't use Obsidian for scratch notes, I use if as a 2nd brain (https://www.buildingasecondbrain.com/).

Lemmy is.... Not distributed computing.

If each instance is a separate application than must scale on it's own, then no distributed computing is occuring.

There is one database, and you can have the instance itself behind a load balancer.

Lemmy is not a distributed program, you can't scale it linearly by adding more nodes. It's severely limited by it's database access patterns, to a single DB, and is not capable of being distributed in it's current state. You can put more web servers behind a load balancer, but that's not really "distributed computing" that's just "distributing a workload", which has a lot of limitations that defeat it being truly distributed.

Actual distributed applications are incredibly difficult to create at scale, with many faux-distribited applications being made (Lemmy being n-tier im a per instance basis).

Think of Kafka. Kafka is an actual distributed application.

Cloud computing is.... Not distributed computing.

We're talking about pushing compute workloads across a distributed set of devices where that workload is linearly scalable by the number of devices involved, compute, storage, failovers...etc scale elegantly. Cloud computing can give you the tools to make such a thing a reality within the scope of the cloud provider, but it most definitely is not distributed computing just by existing.

Also the fediverse is NOT distributed computing either, at least for Lemmy. There is no distributed compute available for Lemmy. You can't have a few hundred users toss up their own compute to handle loads for an instance. Each instance is limited to a single database, and can have webservers behind a load balancer to spread out the compute. And that's about the best you've got. Not distributed, you can't just spin up 100 nodes for a Lemmy instance to handle more load and everything "just works". It's a very "classic" architecture in a way.

A K8 cluster isn't distributed computing until you build a distributed application that can elegantly scale with more and more nodes. And is fault tolerant to nodes straight up dying.

Kafka for example, is an actual distributed application. One which you could run on a K8 cluster, it self-manages storage, duplication, load balancing, failovers, rebalancing...etc elegantly as you add more nodes. It doesn't rely on a central DB, it IS the DB, every node. Lemmy is not.

Or Obsidian? Take actual control over them including rendering if you want to customize that.

Maybe it's a different use case 🤔

I suppose tone is rather difficult on the internet (see: Poe's Law). To me the tone was one of distaste/unsatisfaction with the "could". As if OP is upset that hey keep seeing "could" but no actual implementation.

Needs a midjourney image generated for it, vanilla superhero themed.

M8, this is science, we're on c/science. Something that can do something but isn't verified in a specific environment is a "could". This is how literally every single advancement is made.

So I'm rather confused why it's distasteful to have a feed of new information that we didn't know before. Which is scientific news.

This is a pretty disappointing and anemic article with a misleading title.

I thought this was going to dive into some of the practical pragmatic and scientific ways to measure information. And how relationships can be drawn across that information.

This is quite literally "What is a bit and a byte" 🫤

Which is not information, it's data, information is contextualized data. This article has nothing to do with information.

Catfished.

I'm sure this won't have unfortunate knock on effects 😬

Yes it is nowhere near it. But the basis of the argument that today's limitations mean tomorrow's AI is just as limited is a clear logical fallacy.

AI can't replace a person yet*

Stating that AI limitations today means those limitations will exist in the future, despite the accelerated growth of AI complexity & capabilities is plain wrong.

History is full of examples just like this, from computers, to the internet, to automation....etc "Robots will never replace my job because my job is complicated", it's not a matter of if, but when. Would you rather be on the side of history that considered the impacts and tried to mitigate them, or the side that stuck their head in the sand?

Also, on the point of invalid logic. "AI is not the problem, it's the abuse" is assuming AI exists in a void, which it doesn't. The same logic: Biological weapons aren't bad, it's how they are used is the problem. Misinformation isn't bad, it's how it's spread that's the problem. Guns aren't bad, it's the people shooting them that's the problem. ....etc for everything else in the world that is a real problem because humans use and abuse it.

Current gen AI is a problem because it's a catalyst for abuse. Not because of nature of existing AI, you are right, but that's an argument detached from the reality of the situation.

Note: General Super Intelligence is a problem purely by it's natural. The same goes with partial intelligence due to alignment issues which are currently paradoxical in nature. There are entire fields of study for this.

I would suggest learning how current models function. They have a lot of limitations and they are nowhere near actual AI like movies and media suggest.

Despite this you will find while learning this that the rate of advancement is such that the future dangers posed by AI are real, and must be considered. Ignorantly ignoring the writing on the wall doesn't do us any good.

That's also called a toxic workplace if there is a pattern of feedback like this.

If it is, and if you can, start looking elsewhere. Personal attacks over what should be mundane code review items is unacceptable.

If this was in formal code review, then that's still a huge red flag. Code review is about catching errors, learning opportunity, and periodically style/cleanliness problems. It should be semi-formal, and does not include personal attacks like that. It's a safe place to fail, and should be maintained as such, lest the productivity advantages be lost.

We all make mistakes. I'm a Sr. Dev & Tech Lead and just last week I had an obvious error that a Jr dev caught. It's no big deal.

It can be easy to dwell on this, and think about over and over again. ADHD folks tend to have a stronger sense of justice, which means we are more sensitive to being "wronged", and it will bother us for longer. All I can say is try to not let it bother you as much, it was unprofessional to say that, and minute mistakes are the norm not the exception.

I would HIGHLY recommend obsidian over Notion for knowledge management.

Mainly from a portability and data-ownership perspective.

However, I'm a dev, so I may be biased towards solutions that give me lots of freedom to utilize different technologies to get exactly what I want.

Please stop spreading misinformation in my post

Only permissable misinformation that fits your narrative, got it boss! (There's lots of it in this thread, and some sprinkled into the OP), so it's kinda awkward to say that now 😬

Bells reduce their effectiveness by about half, so they work.

However, I'll admit that the way I stated that implied it was a complete solution. Which I have now edited my comment to reflect.

Being willing to be corrected and accept new information is rather important. So I'm hoping that will be reflected.

Put a bell on your cats, and the core of the argument kind of vanishes!

A little bit of owner diligence sorts that problem out. Do people always do this? No. But if the argument is "Outdoor cats are bad because they hunt indiscriminately" than that argument is no longer valid and is instead "Cats that don't have bells are a danger to their environment" no?

Edit: Bells are not a 100% effective solution as pointed out by @Jho@beehaw.org, they reduce cats hunting effectiveness in ~1/2. I was being too sassy, and got carried away.

By the same note, it's cruel to let your kid play outside for the same logic no? Or for you to let your spouse drive anywhere? How could you let them use the sidewalk when you know there is a chance they could be hit by a car? You are putting them at risk, shame on you for being a bad parent, and a bad spouse to put them at risk. (See how circular that logic is now? It can be applied to everyone and everything)

Quality of life depends on a certain level of risk in every case.

I don't want my cat ran over, that's why the other 5 are indoor only. The 6th is indoor/outdoor because she is happier that way, and was a rescue who would otherwise be dead.

I put value in my animals quality of life, and I'm not so selfish as to detract from it because I'm scared for them. If that quality of life depends on them wandering about the back yard, then I do what I can to facilitate it so they are happy.

She has a bell breakaway collar so she can't hunt, she has a chip so she can be identified, water and food is put out and removed daily, a stand is out on our porch so she hangs out there....etc implying that cat owners are negligent just because they don't meet your one specific criteria is almost toxic.

The armchair argument you are presenting is black and white, AND circular, which means it's ignoring the nuances and is peeping in through a slit just big enough to be critical of others but not big enough for there to be actual understanding. Almost a fallacy really 🤔

Edit: Maybe I should leave this thread. After I got my first cat I was fascinated by their behavior, and started learning about their characteristics and the science behind them, and eventually started rescuing cats (Which is how I ended up with 6...).

So I'm emotionally attached to the topic, and find the quality of the stances in this thread to be both dissipointing and frustrating. Especially when those stances are both cherry-picked and accusatory, and expect the cat owners to defend themselves instead of discussing the nuanced topic. And when replies only pick one small piece to argue against, instead of the topic as a whole.

.... Put a bell on your cat. Problem solved.

We have 1 indoor/outdoor cat. She LOVES to go outside, if she's stuck inside she gets matted fur, gains weight, and is generally angry/sassy. If she gets to go out, she's a happy kitty. And she can't hunt outside animals because of her bell.

This post appears to be based on a general lack of knowledge or understand of feline behavior and needs. You appear to be thinking cats are dogs, which they are not...

"It's cruel to the cats". No, no isn't, you're projecting onto cats. Sure, some people leave their cats out to starve and fend for themselves in an urban environment, that can be cruel. But a cat being outside is not cruel, and it's rather asinine to say so.

Ha, I'm the opposite. I can hammer out productive work, but can't remember words. Or rather, my brain runs at 100mph in circles around a word, and never actually grabs the freaking word 😅