Skip to content

Against AI: An Open Letter From Writers to Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Hachette Book Group, Macmillan, and all other publishers of America

Technology
34 17 523
  • Eco-Friendly Smiles: Inside the Bamboo Toothbrush Market

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • How Fusion Tech Just Changed Geothermal Energy Forever

    Technology technology
    3
    4 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    45 Aufrufe
    T
    Despite the offputting headline, it was a cool vid. Tl/dw: Milimeter wave generators used to heat plasma for fusion research are being adapted as drill heads for geothermal bore holes. It's in the early comercialization phases.
  • 63 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    J
    Very clever.
  • 10 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    T
    "Science" under capitalism has always been funded and developed by/for fascists. The originals in the USA were the founding enslavers. The nazis had their time. Now it's the zios. R&D for genocide as usual.
  • No JS, No CSS, No HTML: online "clubs" celebrate plainer websites

    Technology technology
    205
    2
    771 Stimmen
    205 Beiträge
    7k Aufrufe
    R
    Gemini is just a web replacement protocol. With basic things we remember from olden days Web, but with everything non-essential removed, for a client to be doable in a couple of days. I have my own Gemini viewer, LOL. This for me seems a completely different application from torrents. I was dreaming for a thing similar to torrent trackers for aggregating storage and computation and indexing and search, with search and aggregation and other services' responses being structured and standardized, and cryptographic identities, and some kind of market services to sell and buy storage and computation in unified and pooled, but transparent way (scripted by buyer\seller), similar to MMORPG markets, with the representation (what is a siloed service in modern web) being on the client native application, and those services allowing to build any kind of client-server huge system on them, that being global. But that's more of a global Facebook\Usenet\whatever, a killer of platforms. Their infrastructure is internal, while their representation is public on the Internet. I want to make infrastructure public on the Internet, and representation client-side, sharing it for many kinds of applications. Adding another layer to the OSI model, so to say, between transport and application layer. For this application: I think you could have some kind of Kademlia-based p2p with groups voluntarily joined (involving very huge groups) where nodes store replicas of partitions of group common data based on their pseudo-random identifiers and/or some kind of ring built from those identifiers, to balance storage and resilience. If a group has a creator, then you can have replication factor propagated signed by them, and membership too signed by them. But if having a creator (even with cryptographically delegated decisions) and propagating changes by them is not ok, then maybe just using whole data hash, or it's bittorrent-like info tree hash, as namespace with peers freely joining it can do. Then it may be better to partition not by parts of the whole piece, but by info tree? I guess making it exactly bittorrent-like is not a good idea, rather some kind of block tree, like for a filesystem, and a separate piece of information to lookup which file is in which blocks. If we are doing directory structure. Then, with freely joining it, there's no need in any owners or replication factors, I guess just pseudorandom distribution of hashes will do, and each node storing first partitions closest to its hash. Now thinking about it, such a system would be not that different from bittorrent and can even be interoperable with it. There's the issue of updates, yes, hence I've started with groups having hierarchy of creators, who can make or accept those updates. Having that and the ability to gradually store one group's data to another group, it should be possible to do forks of a certain state. But that line of thought makes reusing bittorrent only possible for part of the system. The whole database is guaranteed to be more than a normal HDD (1 TB? I dunno). Absolutely guaranteed, no doubt at all. 1 TB (for example) would be someone's collection of favorite stuff, and not too rich one.
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    599 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    tuuktuuk@sopuli.xyzT
    Almost nothing is ever really done on any filesystem when you press "delete". The only thing is that those physical parts of the disk with the "deleted" file are marked as "not in use". The data is there still unchanged, until you save something else and that spot on the disk is the first free spot available for saving that new file. So, if you accidentally delete files, make sure that nothing gets saved on that disk anymore, not even by the OS. So, either unmount the disk, or cut the power to your computer, or whatever. Then learn how to mount hard drives as read-only and how to mark the "not in use" spots on your disk as "this spot contains this file". This is why proper deletion of files always includes filling the disk with random data. As long as nothing has been written on top of where the file was (and in reality: still is), it's still there. Only access to it has been removed, but that access can be regained. Been there, done that.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    xenok@lemmy.dbzer0.comX
    For some reason, all Lemmings seem to have a constant hate boner for him. I don't like him, but this is just taking it to a whole new level... 2025 edit: I would like to retract my previous statement. I get it now.