Latty

6 ms·

31.
by Latty 6mo ago
Yeah, because no third party program has ever crashed on any other OS. Come on, this is an absurd comment. Linux has its issues, this is not a serious example of what is keeping normal people from using Linux as a desktop OS. Normal peopl
32.
by Latty 7mo ago
People do this, yeah. Even on Windows I've been over someone's shoulder walking them through something and it drives me nuts they work in a tiny window in a random part of the screen.
33.
by Latty 7mo ago
This "logic" doesn't track at all. Enfranchising women may have benefited the party, does that mean we shouldn't have given women the vote and doing so hurt democracy? Of course not. Just because something benefits a sin
34.
by Latty 7mo ago
> That's a separate argument. No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that does
35.
by Latty 7mo ago
They gave 16 year olds the vote, and 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those area
36.
by Latty 7mo ago
My first thought is that with CGNAT ever more present, this kind of approach seems like it'll have a lot of collateral damage.
37.
by Latty 7mo ago
Or you can ask for a link to the manual. I genuinely can't tell if your post is real advice or sarcasm intended to highlight the insanity of trying to fit square pegs in round holes of using LLMs for everything.
38.
by Latty 7mo ago
Right, but companies routinely accept fines as costs of doing business, while losing your job can destroy your life. If a company has not taken appropriate measures to ensure employees can reasonably catch errors at the rate they are requir
39.
by Latty 7mo ago
> The issue here is that there's no such a tool to automatically validate the output of the LLM - at least, not yet, and i don't see the theoretical way to do it either. Yeah, it's never going to be possible to validate ev
40.
by Latty 7mo ago
This doesn't solve the problem, because companies will force people to use these tools and demand they work faster, eventually resulting in people slipping. People will have to choose between being fired for being "too slow&quot
41.
by Latty 7mo ago
The core problem is that the tool provides output that looks right and is right a lot of the time, but also slips in incorrect stuff in a hard to notice way. Punishment isn't a problem because it doesn't work. If you create a syst
42.
by Latty 7mo ago
It's crazy to me that you'd trust the output of an LLM for that. It's something where if you do it wrong it could cause major damage, and LLMs are literally famous for creating plausbile-sounding but wrong output. If you want
43.
by Latty 7mo ago
It doesn't matter, because any process that seems right most of the time but occasionally is wrong in subtle, hard to spot ways is basically a machine to lull people into not checking, so stuff will always slip through. It's just
44.
by Latty 8mo ago
Slonik uses template strings to do this inline, safely. https://github.com/gajus/slonik
45.
by Latty 8mo ago
Well, there is an advantage, if everything is using the one service then you only need to have one thing alive to check it, so each new app is "free" if you already have push enabled (assuming that push notifications are rare en
46.
by Latty 8mo ago
I think you misread, the delays are if you don't use instant delivery. I use it and it's extremely consistently delivered instantly, which makes sense, it's a websocket. As to battery drain, I'm sure it technically doe
47.
by Latty 8mo ago
The default behaviour for self-hosted on Android is to have a foreground service which holds a websocket open, so it does get pushed from the server and doesn't rely on your phone being awake. https://docs.ntfy.sh/subsc
48.
by Latty 8mo ago
This isn't true, self-hosted Android push notifications in ntfy are provided using a "foreground service" by default (i.e: the app keeps a websocket open and listens), unless you set up firebase for yourself and build a custo
49.
by Latty 8mo ago
I guess it's been a while, but using µ in a name isn't exactly unprecedented, μTorrent was the BitTorrent software to use at the time, and so that discussion played out then. Everyone just called it uTorrent because it was the e
50.
by Latty 8mo ago
I started using them when I discovered the compose key and it became easy to type them, but I've genuinely considered stopping using for this reason.
51.
by Latty 9mo ago
This is actually something where you are often better off outside of cities. The areas serviced by newer providers who are using the government grants to offer fibre to places without it and are actually running new fibre tend to offer much
52.
by Latty 9mo ago
The 10 phone sockets are pretty unlikely, true, but 0 Ethernet? Probably more common than not. If anything, modern builds are doing less ethernet than ever because they assume everyone is just using WiFi.
53.
by Latty 9mo ago
When looking at new build houses a year or two back (in the UK), I saw some stuff that made no sense to me: they installed some by default, but ran it to only the lounge and bedroom 1, the house also had a dedicated study (labelled as such
54.
by Latty 9mo ago
My experience with powerline is they can work well for low activity, but they all overheat if you actually use them continuously, and the advertised speeds are extremely misleading as they are before error correction (which is very signific
55.
by Latty 9mo ago
or https://pcpartpicker.com/products/internal-hard-drive/#sort=...
56.
by Latty 9mo ago
Sure, and that's fine, but relying on it isn't, and it isn't a reason not to use IPv6 (if you want namespacing, there are tools for that outside hiding behind a single IPv4). Hence the advice is not to rely on NAT. This is pe
57.
by Latty 9mo ago
I think this is where the disconnect is: the home users are precisely the ones being talked about, because they are the ones most likely to be treating NAT like it is a security system for their devices in the real world. I've literall
58.
by Latty 9mo ago
Except in the real world everyone is also running UPnP, so NAT is also one misconfiguration away from exposing something publicly. In the real world your ISP might enable IPv6 one day and suddenly you do have a public address. Relying on
59.
by Latty 9mo ago
That's what the firewall on your router is for. NAT might also stop someone connecting, but it's not a guarantee. You can get given a public address and be exposed, you can find out your server actually does UPNP automatically a
60.
by Latty 9mo ago
This is assuming NAT, with IPv6 you should be able to have globally unique IPs. (Not unique to IPv6 in theory, of course, but in practice almost no one these days is giving LAN devices public IPv4s).

More ›