dustyData @ dustyData @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

2,183

Joined

2 yr. ago

It also differentiates it from Bluesky. It was just Twitter's endeavor to spearhead decentralization, just like Threads. Jay Graber has Bluesky's users by the balls and at their whims just like Musk has Twitter. Anything proprietary and for profit will always eventually enshittify. Threads was born already enshittified and Bluesky is on the early part of the curve.

None since I don't have access to my self-hosted server at the moment due to personal circumstances, so I shut it down. I miss my server.

It's the same story as with all of VR. People don't like to strap shit to their faces, or anywhere else in their bodies. We barely tolerate watches. Every single person who wears glasses would drop them in a second if any other viable and sustainable alternative shows up. People who use and love VR put up with the fact they have to strap stuff to their faces. 3D cinema failed financially because people didn't want to have to use simple basic glasses. Not everyone can tolerate a third of a kilo on their heads for too long.

It's way too heavy for that. Imagine that thing while operating for several hours. It's a sure way of getting neck pain. Early laparoscopic optics used lightweight visors directly on the face, doctors were extremely weary. The tech was dropped almost immediately, instead they now project the image on a big TV screen. The Vision Pro is a non-starter at a surgery room, or even as a remote control for robotics.

There are ways of testing for these things that doesn't involve millions of dollars in marketing events (they did flew a bunch of tech influencers to Cupertino) and millions more in manufacturing (factories are expensive as hell). Apple admitted themselves that the number of sales was even lower than their already limited expectations.

You won't bend anything. If properly installed you should be able to just pick the CPU up and remove it without moving the case at all. The idea of socket is that they're all the same regardless of motherboard manufacturer. I looked it up and there's nothing special, particular or unique to your motherboard. Just follow the proper procedure.

The AM5 is a frictionless socket. So, beyond the force frame, there's nothing holding the CPU in. Remove the heatsink though, as the heatsink is (ideally) bolted to the motherboard and not glued to the CPU. If you as much as tilt the case the CPU should come off loose, provided you lifted the cam lever and the force frame.

Here's a diagram. The hole walls around the chip shouldn't matter at all. You can put whatever thin plastic lever around and lift it without any issue. Even with your bare nails. This is what it should look like completely open.

Access to industrial amounts of drugs doesn't help either. Everyone knows Musk consumes a ton.

Linux Foundation survives on Microsoft's financing. Firefox main source of income is Google's money. That's like pointing out that we breathe nitrogen. Yes, it is almost impossible to avoid capitalism because we live immersed in it as a society. But it's not an reason to stop pointing it out and trying to find more ethical and sustainable alternatives.

That's what admins are for, meta moderation. I'm not proposing said solution or even suggesting it is desirable. Harassment exist in all human spaces and it is up to those in positions of authority and the collective consensus to stop it. But most internet spaces are dictatorial and authoritarian by default. There are plenty of examples on the fediverse alone. If any admin chooses to promote or protect the harassment then you're out of luck. If someone wants to annoy the Admins, then they have no moral obligation to protect your community. They are the one's hosting the service and paying for the servers and bandwidth. No mod has any sort of ownership over anything in here.

EDIT: Maybe it is not right, but that's how it is right now. If a bad politician gets voted out of office, we don't call it harassment, even if they founded the town, we call it democracy. But Lemmy is not that, so the idea is moot. Admins are all powerful dictators of their instances.

Only the mod posts there anyway. Locking the community is a mod power.

If it doesn't grow and it's only you and get kicked out of the server for being a nuisance, nothing is lost. There was no community there to begin with. Actually, there was a greater super set community that rejected the mod. And, if there's a small community and they kick you out, even if you founded and started the community, then that's what the community wants.

Which app? Because it all depends of how much access and permissions the app needs. Managing volumes or changing devices is usually the problem. So far I've only had to layer two apps (on bazzite, though): veracrypt and vorta. To access old backups. Everything else works fine, even desktop integration. Although I prefer to use box buddy to handle distrobox as a UI, which runs as a flatpak without problem. It's been great so far at resolving that kind of issues: bug, update, now it works.

If you are open to try a more adventure oriented spin on this, then try Tunic. Where the main game mechanic is translating the game's manual by learning the language of the world.

Start here for everything Universal Blue. Read here to see how the sauce is made.

The buzz word is not aimed at the regular gaming nerd. It is aimed at gaming nerds who are also developers. Universal blue, the project behind Bazzite, Bluefin, and Aurora, aims to market to developers to use their systems first, on the basis of the tech backend. So then they make the cool FOSS things that the nerd public can use. Cloud native just means that something is engineered and made to make use of the container based devops pipeline.

For example, an atomic immutable OS that is meant to be developed and distributed via the container infrastructure (this is what Universal Blue is). So, instead of working on making an OS the regular way, collecting packages and manually connecting and tidying up absolutely every puzzle piece so it fits together, then pushing it through the installer packaging wizard, etc. This OSs are made by taking an already existing distribution, in this case Fedora atomic distros (but this is by no means mandatory), then customizing some things. Like installing libraries, applications, firmware, kernels and drivers. Then putting it all into a container image, like you would do with a docker or a podman server image. This way, on the user side, they don't need to install the OS, instead they already have the minimal atomic system handling framework and just copy and boot into that OS image. This automates a lot of the efforts required for bundling and distributing an OS, and it makes new spins on existing distros really fast and efficient to make. It also means that users don't need to be tech savvy about stuff like directory hierarchies or package management, and updates, installs, upgrades can all be automated to the point of the user barely even noticing them.

On a similar note, these distros, as development workstations, are usually pre-configured to make use of a container based dev pipeline. Everything is flatpacks and development is handled all via docker, pods, etc. Keeping the system clean from the usual development clutter that sediments over time on a traditional development cycle. As a happy coincidence, this makes the dreaded “works on my machine” issue less prevalent, making support of software a tad easier.

“I am being censored!” Screams man who owns media outlet and his every word gets covered by media and spread to every corner of the world.

You know, to make money in a gold rush, don't dig, sell shovels.

Ok, I've actually debated with myself whether to post a comment on this question or not. There is a lot to unpack on this question, and as a matter of fact, Lemmy might not be the most appropriate space to talk about such a complex topic at length. I will try my best to answer in a balanced and rational manner. I'm a psychologist, have read all those experiments and papers, and I can say that maybe there are other points of view and deeper understanding you can approach from on these topics before casting such a wide negative opinion on a whole field of science.

Just to point something out of the gate, psychology is indeed one of the most misrepresented sciences in popular science communication. It is very difficult to explain in lay terms that what we know, experimentally, is from a really recent and young science. Psychology only really took off at the turn of the twentieth century, and just like most sciences, we have changed so much in the past 20 years alone that the public has had a very hard time keeping up with what happens in academia. If you were to scrutinize chemistry back when psychology was barely making its first steps, from today's perspective, you would think they were all wackos. We didn't even had a coherent model of the atom, radiation wasn't even known as a phenomenon and Pluto hadn't been dreamed, much less observed by the human eye. Look at medicine in the 19th century and by today's standard they were all butchers. But the point is that, they weren't malicious. Scientists were still trying to act in good faith with the limited knowledge available at the time, while still trying to expand said knowledge.

As a result, someone like Simon Whistle—who is not a psychologist but educated in business and law, and just a comedy media communicator—is probably working entirely on popular science's musings of already old science papers. Because that's what science does. We change what we affirm to be, probably, the truth as new experiences, ideas and theories are accrued in the collective understanding of reality. So, are there things that psychologist has been wrong about? Yes, absolutely. That's what science is. But changing the general masses ideas about it is an entirely different matter, and it goes at its own rhythm and speed.

One of the barriers is that psychology and human behavior and conscious, as well as subconscious thought, are things everyone has their own experiences and opinions about. Thus processing scientific experiences that clash or contradict an individual's anecdotal observations is challenging. Because, as with any science, nothing can be entirely deterministically predicted. Even physics, which we understand rather well, still has a margin of error and wide possibility for failure on predictions. Reality is simply too complex and has way too many variables for any single event to be predicted with absolute certainty. So, you will find experiences that seem to contradict scientific knowledge from psychology. But the truth is there are actually very few formal scientific laws in psychology.

Just to address your example, there is no prisoner's dilemma rule. It is not even from psychology. It is a game theory thought experiment. As such, it doesn't actually predict at all what people are going to do if placed on such circumstance, it's just an exercise to reason about what would a rational person do on different circumstances. By definition, on a formal prisoner's dilemma, the prisoners are defined to be guilty of some crime. So, I really doubt you were put in a prisoner's dilemma by the cops.

Just to reiterate. No, psychology is not littered with false rules and expectations. The public's perception about psychology is, indeed, littered with misrepresentations that claim that psychology has rules and expectations. Trust me, we don't have none of those you claim that are rules.

Finally, as for diagnosis. There is no per country definitions of mental illness. There are two comprehensive bodies of diagnosis. One is the ICD (International Classification of Diseases) managed by the WHO (World Health Organization) that standardizes and defines criteria for all medical diagnosis internationally. Including neurological, and psychiatric illnesses. Then there's the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) managed by the APA (American Psychiatric Association) that standardizes diagnosis criteria of only mental disorders that was, until recently, a US only academic endeavor. There is overlap, which may cause this confusion that you seem to have. But they have radically different purposes and uses. Mainly, the DSM does a greater effort to contain psychiatric specific information regarding mental disorders that are not and probably will never be part of the ICD. While the ICD is far more international, comprehensive and integrated standard.

But that said, diagnosis is a very personal thing, think back about the confusion the public had about COVID during the pandemic when we knew so little. Even something as common as the influenza, every person manifest and experiences wildly different levels of severity and combinations of symptoms. For a myriad of variables, factors and reasons, some people die of the flu, some people have a mild nose discomfort for a while and are never aware that they were infected. This is the challenge that doctors, psychologists and psychiatrists face every day. As a teacher of mine liked to say, “the difference between your anecdotal experience and science, is that your anecdotal experience gives you one data point, a scientists ideally works with millions of data points”. You had your one anecdote, a doctor (or any other science based health worker) sees the experience of thousands of patients, and would have read about millions of other's experiences just by the time they finish their basic education.

Corporate doesn't just want a lot of money, they want all of the money.