There's no indication government is behind this and given that Google is rolling out tools now to protect against it this was probably always doable and just never prioritized.
Because Codeberg is a proper non-profit association ("Codeberg e.V.") which makes it more than "just another forge". With that said, I do wish decentralized/distributed forges was used more, git unsurprisingly fits well with it.
I think the table at the end of the article is more so.
- Worldwide sales -10% YoY
- China sales -26% YoY
And when you cross compare Porsche saying they sold more EV powertrains than their gas equivalents against China's new found foothold as the market leader in consumer electric cars (BYD, NIO, Xiaomi, etc...)
Then I think you see an early indication not just of electric car dominance, but of the (very potential) rise of China as the premier automotive super power.
Everyone building toward superintelligence is obsessed with hardware. AR glasses. AI pins. Cameras everywhere. Sensors on every surface.
They’re all wrong. Or at least, they’re all early.
The human body has never been augmented. Not permanently. And it won’t be for decades. We are a species habituated to two rectangles — the phone and the laptop. That’s where we live. Eight hours a day, minimum. Every decision, every intention, every meaningful action flows through those screens.
Not everyone wants to run their own infra. But at least Forgejo works on the distributed network of projects, so in the future it should be easy to migrate if needed.
I’ve noticed a recent change in Walmart Scan & Go (Walmart Pay) that really illustrates how far their purchase tracking goes. If you’ve set up Walmart Pay with a credit card, and you later use that same physical card in-store, Walmart now appears to associate those transactions with your account as well.
I’m fairly confident of this because the app has started showing me in-store purchases that were not made using Walmart Pay. It suggests they’re linking transactions at the card-number level, not just through the app.
I suspect they may also be tying in-store purchases to your profile if you’ve ever placed an online order, though that part is speculation.
I agree that there’s always been toxicity on the Internet, but I also feel it’s harder to avoid toxicity today since the cost of giving up algorithmic social media is greater than the cost of giving up Usenet, chat rooms, and forums.
In particular, I feel it’s much harder to disengage with Facebook than it is to disengage with other forms of social media. Most of my friends and acquaintances are on Facebook. I have thought about leaving Facebook due to the toxic recommendations from its feed, but it will be much harder for me to keep up with life events from my friends and acquaintances, and it would also be harder for me to share my own life events.
With that said, the degradation of Facebook’s feed has encouraged me to think of a long-term solution: replacing Facebook with newsletters sent occasionally with life updates. I could use Flickr for sharing photos. If my friends like my newsletters, I could try to convince them to set up similar newsletters, especially if I made software that made setting up such newsletters easy.
No ads, no algorithmic feeds, just HTML-based email.
Another commentor succinctly pointed out one argument against RAII+friends is that it encourages thinking about single objects, as opposed to bulk processing.
In many contexts, the common case is in fact bulk processing, and programming things with the assumption that everything is a single, discrete element creates several problems, mostly wrt. performance, but also maintainability. [1][2]
> The whole point of an arena allocator is the exact opposite of RAII
Yes, agreed. And the internet is rife with people yelling about just how great RAII is, but comparatively few people have written specifically about it's failings, and alternatives, which is what I'm asking about today.
Biggest challenge is that people bleat about executive overreach when their team is not in power, then smirk with glee when they have it. Similar to debates about freedom of speech, etc.
Yes it is your choice. You could have gone to the physical location, called them, sent a letter to their address, used Bing, Yahoo or whatever. Your argument is just not rational.
I’m part of a small team based in Iași, Romania, and we’ve spent the last year building Cronos Browser. To be honest, we built this because we were frustrated that "AI integration" in modern browsers usually just means sending all your data to a cloud API. We wanted to see if we could move that intelligence directly to the edge.
The browser is based on Chromium for compatibility, but we stripped out the telemetry and Google services. The main differentiator is that we integrated an inference engine directly into the client. This means features like summarization, translation, or asking the assistant (we call it UIKI) happen 100% locally on your CPU/GPU. No data leaves the machine, which we think is the only way to do privacy-first AI.
We’re also experimenting with something pretty ambitious called the AVALW Protocol, which is a decentralized layer we're designing to mitigate some of the MITM vulnerabilities inherent in standard HTTPS, though it's still in heavy development. There’s also an opt-in "Pool Mode" for P2P distributed computing if you want to contribute resources to the network.
We know the browser market is incredibly tough and skepticism is high for new protocols, so we’re here specifically for technical feedback. We’re currently live on Windows, with Mac/Linux in the pipeline.
I’ll be hanging around the comments to answer questions about our local inference implementation or the protocol design. Roast us or help us improve!
It should not be a problem, pseudorandom numbers are used in simulations, like monte-carlo, all the time.
Nim uses xoroshiro[0] algorithm for std/random module and it produces good quality statistically random bits until 5TB of output. And lower 4 bits have a little bias, but it should not matter as we only use upper 64 out of available 128 bits.
Also, I just now realise that xoroshiro-128+ is really cheap, so perhaps my batching optimisation was unnecessary here.
I think state of the art LLMs would pass the Turing test for 95% people if those people could (text) chat to them in a time before LLM chatbots became widespread.
That is, the main thing that makes it possible to tell LLM bots apart from humans is that lots of us have over the past 3 years become highly attuned to specific foibles and text patterns which signal LLM generated text - much like how I can tell my close friends' writing apart by their use of vocabulary, punctuation, typical conversation topics, and evidence (or lack) of knowledge in certain domains.
How so? The OP referenced how difficult it is to avoid said takes and news without being a complete luddite. That certainly implies avoiding certain tech, I have to assume they meant much of the digital tech we use today rather than the power loom luddites were pushing back on.
Your bleach scenario is confusing to me, its also you arguing against something completely unrelated to the discussion here.
> std::unique_ptr ensures that no other std::unique_ptr will own its object
Literally all std::unique_ptr does is wrap the pointer. If we make two unique_ptrs which both think they own object X then not only will they both exist and point at X (so they don't actually ensure they're unique) they'll also both try to destroy X when they disenage e.g. at the end of a scope, leading to a double free or similar.
Uniqueness is a property you are promising, not one they're granting.
I expect you knew this, but it's worth underscoring that there is no magic here. This really is doing only the very simplest thing you could have imagined, it's a pointer but as an object, a "smart pointer" mostly in the same sense that if I add a cheap WiFi chip to this refrigerator and double the price now it's a "smart fridge".
I think it's more a dependency and less a derivative (there isn't any source code/game objects being distributed via the mod as far as I can tell.)
I would be very interested to see how a court would rule on this, as AFAIK such as Lexmark v. Static Control Components, you can modify products you purchase, but how much weight would the TOS really hold?
Fair point - both use VNC for unattended setup. The difference is implementation: Tart does it via a Packer plugin (Go), we built it natively in Swift with a customizable YAML schema that's less error-prone. User-facing difference is --unattended flag vs Packer workflow.
I’ve long suspected that my company’s previous Head of Architecture was a double agent, actually working for a competitor. I’ve never seen anyone create so much process that likely looks good to the board while slowing every single person down, yet never actively preventing anyone from doing anything.
I mean, it’s either that or they were just incompetent, and honestly the double-agent theory is more fun. Although, Hanlon’s Razor and all...
