I remember it as, Firefox was fast enough, but Chrome was shipping a weirdly quick JS engine and trying to convince people to put more stuff into JS because on Chrome that would be feasible. Nowdays if you go out without your turbo-JIT hand-optimized JS engine everyone laughs at you and it’s Chrome’s fault.

It sounds like nobody actually understood what you want.

You have a non-ZFS boot drive, and a big ZFS pool, and you want to save an image of the boot drive to the pool, as a backup for the boot drive.

I guess you don’t want to image the drive while booted off it, because that could produce an image that isn’t fully self-consistent. So then the problem is getting at the pool from something other than the system you have.

I think what you need to do is find something else you can boot that supports ZFS. I think the Ubuntu live images will do it. If not, you can try something like re-installing the setup you have, but onto a USB drive.

Then you have to boot to that and zfs import your pool. ZFS is pretty smart so it should just auto-detect the pool structure and where it wants to be mounted, and you can mount it. Don’t do a ZFS feature upgrade on the pool though, or the other system might not understand it. It’s also possible your live kernel might not have a new enough ZFS to understand the features your pool uses, and you might need to find a newer one.

Then once the pool is mounted you should be able to dd your boot drive block device to a file on the pool.

If you can’t get this to work, you can try using a non-ZFS-speaking live Linux and dding your image to somewhere on the network big enough to hold it, which you may or may not have, and then booting the system and copying back from there to the pool.

Well you can start by trying on purpose to make an SCP wiki level horror scene. Then the bugs are features!

It’s still terrible though! Turn it 45 degrees why don’tcha!

I think it’s meant to be since like 3 days ago.

I don’t know why your friend doesn’t like it. Ask your friend why they don’t like it.

There are a lot of missing steps people don’t really understand yet R.E. how this all amounts to something complicated like “a liver”. But we think that the basic building block of it is that there are gradients of chemical concentration that some cells set up, and then other cells react to the level of the chemical and decide to different things. There’s a famous analogy of the French Flag Model, where the different stripes of the French flag are imagined to emerge from how far you are from the left edge where a “morphogen” chemical is coming from, because cells detect and react to different concentrations of the chemical in different ways.

And the cells do these things because the DNA programs them to do it. Some genes produce proteins that can turn around and bind to the DNA that encodes other genes, and make those other genes produce more or fewer proteins of their own. Proteins can be made so that they bind or unbind DNA in the presence of other proteins, or particular chemicals, or which can function to turn one chemical into another. So you can have little logic circuits made out of genes that measure chemicals and turn other genes on and off. And you can have little memory circuits based on which genes have things bound to them and which ones are currently on or off, so the cells can remember what it is they decided to be. And so the cells are programmed to differentiate into progressively more specific cell types over time depending on what signals they see, with the morphogen gradients or combinations of them allowing the cells to have some idea of where they are in the body.

And the proteins are these little squishy clicky things, like long strings of magnets that will snap into certain shapes, or that can swap between a few shapes. They can be shaped so they fit really nicely against certain shapes of DNA sequence or other proteins, or so that they fit really nicely against small molecules with a piece pushing on the molecule in just the right place to make it easy for an atom to break off the end of it or whatever. And because they live in this weird tiny world where everything is constantly vibrating around and banging against everything else (because of how tiny the volumes get when you shrink the lengths to cell size), this is enough for them to find and stick to the stuff they are shaped to stick to.

Then depending on genetic variation between people, the proteins involved can e.g. have different set points for the concentrations they react to, and that can translate into the threshold between cells deciding to do one thing or another moving around in the body, and in turn translate into people having e.g. a wider or narrower region of their face decide to be a nose.

Praise be to our lord and savior the UEFI Forum, that we might not all meet such a dismal fate.

This /c/ is catnip for lemmy users.

Welcome to /c/atnip@lemmy.world

You’re probably going to run into the problem that people didn’t anticipate your strategy if you try to run a model on a GPU with way more memory than the host system. I’m not sure many execution frameworks can go straight from disk to GPU RAM. Also, storage speed for loading the model might be an issue on an SOC that boots off e.g. an SD card.

An eGPU dock should do CUDA just as well as an internal GPU, as far as I know. But you would need the drivers installed.

Sure

Like, each user is individually kicked off the PDS in reaction to some bad thing they did? Or labeling is reactive in that it labels bad stuff already posted, and each user has to pick labelers to listen to themselves?

I’m not sure if Bluesky’s front-end defaults to using some particular labelers. I know there’s some moderation going on for you as soon as you log in, done by someone.

But yes, each user has to choose whose moderation decisions they want to use, and they can’t rely on everyone they can see also seeing exactly the same space they themselves are seeing. But I’m not sure it’s possible or even desirable to get rid of the requirement/ability to choose your mods. I should be able to be in a community that has mods I trust, and the community chatting to itself and determining that so-and-so is a great mod who we should all listen to, and then all listening to them, sounds like a good idea to me.

Being able to see and talk to people who aren’t in the same space I’m in might not be as good?

Smartphones are great. Apps are user-hostile malware. Online spaces are, in the majority, traps. If every time you drove downtown you ended up in a corporate police state designed to play you and your friends off each other and make you all miserable so you look at more advertisements for shampoo, you would conclude that getting in the car is bad for you.

No?

An anthropomorphic model of the software, wherein you can articulate things like “the software is making up packages”, or “the software mistakenly thinks these packages ought to exist”, is the right level of abstraction for usefully reasoning about software like this. Using that model, you can make predictions about what will happen when you run the software, and you can take actions that will lead to the outcomes you want occurring more often when you run the software.

If you try to explain what is going on without these concepts, you’re left saying something like “the wrong token is being sampled because the probability of the right one is too low because of several thousand neural network weights being slightly off of where they would have to be to make the right one come out consistently”. Which is true, but not useful.

The anthropomorphic approach suggests stuff like “yell at the software in all caps to only use python packages that really exist”, and that sort of approach has been found to be effective in practice.

Echo chambers aren’t that bad. I don’t surround myself with people and things I like because the ones I don’t like are going to hurt me, I do it because I don’t like them and my life is too short to waste with their nonsense.

You can kick bigots off a Bluesky PDS.

But letting everyone label accounts and posts and run feeds of moderation advice is a lot quicker at booting someone from the virtual space than waiting around for someone to come and decide that yes, so-and-so really has broken BigPDSHost policy and shall be deleted. It’s also a great way to find who you want to boot.

I thought “where the hell does Twitch keep coming up with these absurd sex-related things to ban?” and it turns out it’s just this one lady and inventing them is her shtick and she’s single-handedly keeping like five journalists employed.

Zuckerberg Did Nothing Wrong

I’m concerned that the narrative that what Facebook was trying to achieve here was wrong or bad is itself user-hostile, and pushes in favor of the non-fiduciary model of software.

Facebook paid people to let them have access to those people’s communications with Snap, Inc., via Snapchat’s app. This is so that Facebook could do their analytics magic and try and work out how often Snapchat users tend to do X, Y, or Z. Did they pay enough? Who knows. Would you take the deal? Maybe not. Was this a totally free choice without any influence from the creeping specter of capitalist immiseration? Of course not. But it’s not some unusually nefarious plot when a person decides to let a company watch them do stuff! Privacy isn’t about never being allowed to reveal what you are up to. Some people like to fill out those little surveys they get in the mail.

Now, framing this as Facebook snooping on Snapchat’s data concedes that a person’s communications from their Snapchat app to Snapchat HQ are Snapchat’s data. Not that person’s data, to do with as they please. If the user interferes with the normal operation of one app at the suggestion of someone who runs a different app, this framing would see that as two apps having a fight, with user agency nowhere to be found. I think it is important to see this as a user making a choice about what their system is going to do. Snapchat on your phone is entirely your domain; none of it belongs to Snap, Inc. If you want to convince it to send all your Snapchat messages to the TV in Zuckerberg’s seventh bathroom in exchange for his toenail clippings, that’s your $DEITY-given right.

User agency is under threat already, and we should not write it away just to try and make Facebook look bad.

Just start sending your own terms back to them. They accepted the terms and provided the thing? Great!

How much of this is “the model can read ASCII art”, and how much of this is “the model knows exactly what word ought to go where [MASK] is because it is a guess-the-word-based computing paradigm”?