Yeah it felt like it, at least. The first difference about origin and era threw me off; people in general are not interested in it and would probably not list the facts like that.
It felt uncomfortable and disingenuous reading it. I would have preferred if it ended with either “This is written by Chat-GPT” or “I used Chat-GPT then edited it”. Like the TLDR/Peertube bot on Lemmy, at least they sign it with their identity when they’re bot accounts.
as time goes on i think techs that mark human made content will be more practical.
the only reason that read as “off” is because the poster did not put any time into it, prob just a simple question in a default chat somewhere. well made systems tuned to thier use are going to be surprisingly effective.
Well, we had posts, discussions, and even media in USENET back then. The only real differences I see are that fediverse is more modern and media-aware, and that people actively battle spam/bots/trolls, which in my time on usenet was not really an issue, though.
This looks like written by ChatGPT, and it is in many ways straight up off-topic or wrong.
Origin/Era: yeah, duh. That was already stated in the question.
Architecture: It doesn’t actually show any differences, it just doesn’t talk about different parts of the architecture. Usenet is also federated and Fediverse instances also don’t store all messages.
Content structure: This is the closest to an actual answer. But from what it seems, the default use case of the Usenet is identical to Lemmy.
Protocols: Stated in the question. NNTP is also federated.
Moderation: This is straight-up wrong. There are moderated and unmoderated newsgroups, same as there are moderated and unmoderated instances/communities on the fediverse.
Modern Relevance: This whole section is irrelevant to the question.
Sorry I should marked it as AI :) From my experience usenet is more uncesored compared to fediverse. The most issue with fedi is that there is no tru replication system (mayby except sometimes data might be cached on other instance).
You can take any map of anything and color it in using only four colors so that no adjacent “countries” are the same color. Often it can be done with three!
Note you’ll need the regions to be connected (or allow yourself to color things differently if they are the same ‘country’ but disconnected). I forget if this causes problems for any world map.
What about a hypothetical country that is shaped like a donut, and the hole is filled with four small countries? One of the countries must have the color of one of its neighbors, no?
But each small country has three neighbors! Two small ones, and always the big donut country. I attached a picture to my previous comment to make it more clear.
Whoops I should’ve been clearer I meant two neighbours within the donut. So the inside ones could be 2 or 3 colours and then the donut is one of the other 2 or the 1 remaining colour.
That map is actually still quite similar to the earlier example where all 4 donut hole countries are the same. Once again on the right is the adjacency graph for the countries where I’ve also used a dashed line to show the only difference in adjacency. https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/f58ae328-4fc2-4d65-89d4-0850eceb4fce.webp
Looks to be that way one of the examples given on the wiki page. It is still however an interesting theory, if four countries touching at a corner, are the diagonal countries neighbouring each other or not. It honestly feels like a question that will start a war somewhere at sometime, probably already has.
In graph theory there are vertices and edges, two shapes are adjacent if and only if they share an edge, vertices are not relevant to adjacency. As long as all countries subscribe to graph theory we should be safe
The regions need to be contiguous and intersect at a nontrivial boundary curve. This type of map can be identified uniquely with a planar graph by placing a vertex inside each region and drawing an edge from one point to another in each adjacent region through the bounding curve.
In that image, you could color yellow into purple since it’s not touching purple. Then, you could color the red inner piece to yellow, and have no red in the inner pieces.
Isn’t the proof of this theorem like millions of pages long or something (proof done by a computer ) ? I mean how can you even be sure that it is correct ? There might be some error somewhere.
First off I’m terribly sorry for your loss. While I am by no means a paramedic I took first aid classes from one and this very subject came up (what to do with used PPE and such after an incident). We were told to just leave it pending hazmat-trained folks responding for cleanup. At a patient’s home it’s left and frankly not their responsibility - the patient alone is.
Sucks but they will indeed leave stuff behind - I wish it had been a better outcome for your family but I assure you they meant no offense or harm.
Ugh that sucks. I can only guess that it was an oversight but you’re absolutely right to be bothered. As you suggest, likely a moment of “get this bag out of the way”. Still upsetting for sure.
While it was thankfully brief I also was part of end of life care for my Dad and despite the anguish I took great comfort from knowing his last hours were with loved ones nearby and in his own bed. I wish that the knowledge you were there and helped brings you solace in your grief. You were there when it mattered most. hug I wish you and your family peace.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate your kind words.
In this world, I only had my dad and grandmother. I took care of them both for years. My grandmother passed in February, and dad’s mind just imploded. She was more “smother” over a mother, so he was in the process to learn how to adult despite having severe paranoid schizophrenia
He was doing so well too, I taught him how to buy clothing and how to use uber.
He was for sure happy when he passed as I kept him reassured that he was safe and “the government doesn’t know where you are”
You become stateless, and it’s a legal nightmare. Most countries won’t deport you, because they have nowhere to deport you to. But some countries like Australia will detain you until you get citizenship elsewhere. Sort of a catch-22, where you need to apply for citizenship to get out of prison, but can’t because no country wants to grant you citizenship because you’re in prison. The act of being stateless in itself isn’t a crime, but living somewhere without a visa is, and some countries (like Australia) don’t automatically grant visas to stateless people without some other reason like a refugee application.
Prior to the 60’s, it used to be much more common, because most countries use a legal concept called Jus Sanguinis, which basically means that citizenship gets passed from parents to children via birth. America, on the other hand, uses something called Jus Soli, which grants citizenship based on you being born in the country. But if the parents aren’t eligible to pass their citizenship on and the country they’re in doesn’t practice Jus Soli, then the child would be stateless. Back in the 60’s, most Jus Sanguinis countries agreed at a convention to provide emergency citizenship to individuals who would otherwise be born stateless.
These days, the largest causes are typically financial/records keeping issues in third world countries, or are due to politics like you’re describing. In the former, imagine a Jus Sanguinis country where you need to prove who your parents are. But they don’t have copies of their birth certificates or your birth certificate, and you don’t have money to get new ones. There’s also an administrative fee when you try to file the paperwork, and you can’t afford it. In the latter, it’s often due to good old fashioned racism. Certain ethnic groups being denied citizenship (like the Uyghur Muslims in China, or the Koreans in Japan following world war 2.) It’s also commonly due to authoritarian governments stripping citizenship for arbitrary reasons like you’ve mentioned. Russia isn’t the first to strip citizenship; It’s also common in parts of the Middle East.
Dude this is sick! I’ve grown up my whole life in the US and never realized how many other countries do this. Wikipedia has an incredible map: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
I think the issue being missed here is that Meta will ultimately aim to suck all users into themselves, and then once they feel they’ve done enough of that, they will go completely closed, even potentially forking the protocol itself. If any legal attempt to stop this is made they will bog it down with hordes of lawyers for decades.
Their goal is not to help fediverse, it is recognising fediverse to be a threat and aiming to absorb it. Literally no different to how reddit slowly absorbed all internet forums into itself, killing the distributed internet.
Fediverse is attempting to bring back that distributed internet and they’re trying to find ways to kill it. All corporations seek monopoly, it’s how capitalism works.
Because the government, federal and state level (especially conservative) hate public education and fight to defund it as much as possible. Largely because an educated populace is a dangerous populace. Especially when your political platform relies on identity politics, culture wars, cheating, screwing over the poor, opposing minorities, religious fundamentalism, and any other regressive, oppressive bullshit you can think of. They want stupid voters that they can point at “the enemy” and pit against each other to distract them from facts, all so they can stay rich and powerful.
It’s because a lot of conservatives believe in a really screwed up, masochistic, bastardized version of Christianity that prioritizes vengeance, punishment, and anger. It ignores the love, kindness, acceptance, and mercy (ie the actual teachings of Jesus) that make society work well.
So, when kids come home with these new ideas about kindness and acceptance, because being kind to a gay classmate is a great way to demonstrate the love real Christianity teaches and society values, the parents freak out. They push to ban books, fire teachers, and move their kids to private schools that more match their hate filled, divisive worldview. Education polluted their child with abnormal, liberal indoctrination, like being kind, empathetic, and accepting of others.
I an attempt to steer their children back to their core values of hate and divisiveness, they lash out. Any pushback the parents feel in response becomes persecution, because of course “the world” would disagree with them. They’re the TRUE Christians afterall. So they isolate in ecochambers, and they get more hateful. Any difference of opinion is met with derision and just simply validates their position. And despite being the TRUE Christians, or REAL conservatives, they become less Christian and less conservative every day, instead just becoming these weird, evil, empty husks of people with no real values or ideals outside of hate.
I don’t agree with the guy who tried to shoot trump. But I WOULD agree with anyone who stormed the stage, and forcably made any of them wear a ballgag. THATS the way you shut them up!
Less assasinations, and more…ass…something…ok, there’s clearly a pun here about making an ass out of trump. Somebody make something out of that.
Trump seems to just riff on his weak understanding of the last thing he heard. Maybe they were afraid of a weird rant about bulbasaur extinguishing clean coal.
The one that comes to mind was an elderly lady who got into some kind of finch-type bird (canaries maybe) instead of cats. She had obviously been letting them breed because there was flock of about 40 of them in the house, all flying together from one piece of furniture to the next.
I found it pretty alarming to begin with but after half an hour or so I could appreciate the beauty of it.
I don’t remember… They might have been institutionalised and afraid of the outside world anyway though! We had that with some chickens once after they spent a long time in an enclosure. All the baby ones came out flapping their wings and running around but the grownup ones were scared to come out.
So basically 1 in 20 inmates on death row are innocent, and people (mostly conservatives) are A-OK with that percentage of innocent people being subject to state-sanctioned murder in a very brutal way that’s far from painless. A dog being put down by a vet receives more humane treatment than a human being put down by the state.
That “at least 4%” bit makes that even worse. Just look at the List of miscarriage of justice cases on Wikipedia, it’s not not exhaustive and it’s huge, I cannot morally or ethically justify capital punishment on that alone, the whole state-sanctioned murder bit just makes it even more horrific.
So everyone that punishes someone with death will receive the death penalty?
Of course, you will have to punish the person that punishes the person that punishes someone with the death penalty with the death penalty with the death penalty
But then, because they punished someone that punished someone that punished someone that punished someone with death with death with death with death, they will have to be killed
Eventually, you will run out of people who can punish someone with the death penalty, so you will have to do it. Since you killed someone as a punishment, someone will also have to kill you, but because you are the only person that can do that, you will have to do it, ending the loop
Honestly? A major breakthrough in fusion, or to a lesser extent, any other clean energy. We’ve decarbonised a decent chunk of the world’s energy profile, but there’s a strong financial incentive that politicians are vulnerable to protecting oil and gas, slowing down further decarbonisation. Batteries and supercapacitors also could do the trick.
I don’t think fusion would be as useful a technology as it would have been a few decades ago. Now renewables (wind, solar, hydro) seem like more and more as the clean and cheap energy of the future. The biggest problem of storage is rapidly being solved with batteries springing up everywhere.
The real problem with fusion is that even if it worked, the plants would be very complex and expensive. It would be much cheaper and reliable to build solar, wind and batteries instead.
Having operational fusion reactors would be cool as hell, but it wouldn’t have that much impact on our lives in the end.
Respectfully, I disagree. We’ve entered an AI boom, and right now, the star of the show is in a bit of a gangly awkward teenage phase. But already, these large data models are eating up mountains of energy. We’ll certainly make the technology more energy efficient, but we’re also going to rely on it more and more as it gets better. Any efficiency gains will be eaten up by AI models many times more complex and numerous than what we have now.
As climate change warms the globe, we’re all going to be running our air conditioning more, and nowhere will that be more true than the server centers where we centralize AI. To combat climate change, we may figure out ways of stripping carbon from the air and this will require energy too.
Solar is good. It’s meeting much of our need. Wind and hydroelectric fill gaps when solar isn’t enough. We have some battery infrastructure for night time and we’ll get better at that too. But there will come a point where we reach saturation of available land space.
If we can supplement our energy supply with a technology that requires a relatively small footprint (when it comes to powering a Metropolitan area), can theoretically produce a ton of power, requires resources that are plentiful on Earth like deuterium, and doesn’t produce a toxic byproduct, I think we should do everything in our power to make this technology feasible. But I can certainly agree that we should try to get our needs completely met with other renewables in the meantime.
While I agree with what you’ve said, I’ve always felt fusion and other such tech is the future of long distance space travel, not Earth based energy use. Wind and hydro are useless in space and solar has issues with power accumulation the further away from a star you go. We will still need some kind of “fuel” based energy source if we’re ever to enter deep space and cross the gaps(unless battery tech increases much further to the point that a “battery” lasts a significant portion of the vehicles lifetime). Even then, you’d need recharge stations at each end or to park by a star to refuel in between.
We have fusion/fission now. That kind of battery tech is still a ways off. Feels shortsighted to ignore nuclear now just because it’s not perfect in this specific environment. After all, name any vehicle not powered by nuclear that can run for 20-30 years before it needs to refuel/recharge. No battery tech can even come close currently.
Fusion is likely the end-game power gen tech for humanity, assuming no new physics (and excluding Dyson structures). For the long term, it likely will be the most useful way of generating mass amounts of electricity you can get, and access to more energy enables more possibilities of all sorts of things, enabling even things that are extremely impractical today due to their energy needs
For example, carbon capture becomes a possibility, and stuff like mass desalination. And then you could, in theory, go even more extreme with stuff like terraforming mars at human timescales, with enough energy. Of course this depends how practical and efficient fusion reactors actually would be, but with enough energy you can do so so much
I don’t think it’s gonna get cheaper than renewables, they’re literally using free energy without needing any human intervention aside from inspection and repairs. The issue is the oil and gas companies paying the politicians. Also right-wing parties that do everything they can to keep emissions up just cause. No new technology can fix those issues.
The large storage batteries that use sodium ion. They should be able to get like 5,000 full cycles before they degrade and can be buried or stored outside. That and a solar array on a roof should let most anyone be completely off grid. Full solar house that should last for 15 years before the system needs replaced. The batteries will last longer and be cheaper than lithium. Solar panel prices are consistently getting cheaper.
I think in 5 years time there will be a lot of the electrical grid system (for most who will be still attached to the grid) just getting power almost completely from solar, and storing enough in these batteries for the nights and cloudy days.
We’ve decarbonised a decent chunk of the world’s energy profile
Unfortunately, things like AI continue to fuel our hunger for power, preventing fossil fuels from being phased out… and as such, CO2 production continues to accelerate uncontrollably.
Yes, atmospheric CO2 production continues to accelerate. It hasn’t even begun to slow down, much less reach a steady state or reverse.
And this is excluding the feedback loops (arctic permafrost, methyl hydrates, etc.) that are now beginning to cook off in nature.
We are still solidly on the “business as usual” path towards civilizational collapse by some point in the 2050s, and functional extinction by some point between 2100 and 2200.
Sort of. It made more energy than the lasers that actually caused the reaction. It still used vastly more energy than that to actually power those lasers. We are still far off but it was a major stepping point.
I refuse to pay a premium for locked-down proprietary hardware solely because it looks more visually pleasing than an alternative that performs better.
I was trying to get on the list at mt work when I got a hardware refresh this year, I dislike large laptops and the dev spec is a 17" thinkpad (which imo has the left CTL and fn keys backwards, breaks muscle memory when changing between computers) but I’m docked most times but when I’m not the battery is terrible, maybe a handful of hours. Probably due to corporate crapware, but at least the arm macbooks stand a chance, my partner has an m1 mbp and she doesn’t bother charging it most workdays or work with it plugged in, she doesn’t need to. We were playing factorio the other night and she was moonlighting into her desktop, she got through a day’s work, a bunch of hours of game streaming and some of the next work day, that should be the expectation for a normal device.
Apple in my view really understood mobile devices, they had the hands down best trackpad for a long time, a fantastic keyboard, great display, a form factor you can actually carry around and as far as I recall, even the intel macs had better battery life.
It’s very hard to argue against Apple hardware and battery life. Maybe with windows moving slowly toward ARM they’ll catch up some. It’s going to be very tough though - Apple has full control over their hardware, which meat they can optimize their OS for it.
I’m in the exact same situation, however the right shift key broke, and activates randomly. This laptop only ever moved between a cupboard and a desk, without the tiniest bump, but after a couple months of very light use the shift key breaks. I now have to have sticky keys enabled permanently.
Also the only way to enable sticky keys on the login screen is to triple click the power button. You would thing they could just put a button for the accessibility accessibility menu next to the one for the keyboard layout switcher, but no.
Tell that to my 2014 MacBook Pro that is still going strong. I can do CAD and video editing and the thing still performs fine. Battery life decreased a bit but still lasts way more than enough.
and the new Apple chip ones are also ridiculous. I have one for work, and was able to leave my computer closed in my backpack for several hour running code training an ML model. The thing did not even get warm and the battery went down by 2% only.
That being said, I think the best computer is the one that works for YOU. In my previous job I was forced to use windows and boy did I suffer! Even Office felt clunkier on windows than Mac.
I can understand people find Apple stuff outrageously expensive and locked down, but come on have some justice on its performance.
I have a dual boot Win/Linux PC with Ryzen 5800x, and an MBP M2 Pro laptop. MBP blows my PC out of the water for my job, which requires hundreds of layers of audio running bazillions of DSPs in real time. Even renders take 30% less time on M2 on my case. And that’s happening on battery.
I never get that much optimized power on my PC. I have to disagree there’s anything out there that performs better for a user just want to have the job done in a reasonable time.
I really hope the snapdragon x laptops gain some traction. I recently went laptop shopping and what I wanted (good to great display, stays cold, good battery life) line up really well with a MacBook/MB air. I just couldn’t stomach the stupid mark-ups for memory and storage. I wound up with a Lenovo 7x slim. Upgrading to 32 GB memory and 1 TB storage was around $115. The non-emulated performance on windows is solid. Emulated is generally ok for my usage. I’m probably going to try Linux on it when I have a light week, but I’m somewhat wary of the impact that will have on battery life.
Modern people lack an appreciation for the beauty of existence and the physical world. The most intricate and aesthetically pleasing creative achievements of the human race pale in comparison to the inherent beauty of nature.
Artistic expression is inherent to being human. Our creative achievements are part of the beauty of nature. A painting that can make you smile, a story that can make you laugh, a song that can make you cry, that’s all nature, and it is beautiful. If you haven’t found something that speaks to you yet, I hope you’ll keep looking
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate art more than most. But there’s an exclusionary aspect that exists with art, wherein only some people can truly appreciate various aspects.
In contrast, nature is more universal and primal. Everyone, regardless of language or culture or education, can appreciate natural phenomena. The beauty of nature speaks to us on a fundamental level, whereas the beauty of art requires a certain degree of acculturation and intellectual effort to grasp.
Furthermore, human art is a reflection of nature and indeed a part of the beauty of nature, as you say. However, that inevitably positions it as a subset of the all encompassing beauty of existence as a whole. Artistic works are small mirrors reflecting back aspects of reality in interesting ways. But because they can only ever represent fragments of the greater whole, they are somewhat less awe inspiring.
Often, works of art can prompt us to engage with the beauty of reality, so I’m not condemning them in any way. I’m just saying that the representation can’t be better than the real thing, even if humans wish that it were.
But it’s hard to argue that they could exceed the beauty of the thing that they reflect.
Only if you’re looking for objective value of paint on a canvas, or words on a page. What I think is beautiful about art is the way it makes people feel, and the complexity of the human context that allows that. Just this week, a story caused my fiancée to have a breakthrough in her CPTSD therapy. That’s a unique kind of beauty
kbin.life
Top