I really dislike that guy. I was interested in his website but lost interest because of him. I already forgot why I started disliking him. But this just adds to that.

Sure buddy.

You should have said “sure buddy” and ignored them.

He is being charged with W R O N G T H I N K.

🥁

I mean for the big software boys to actually start caring about it.

This feels like a scam just like those Elon Musk crypto scams you see everywhere.

It’s pretty sad how not having the money for it makes it unbearable, while all of them don’t need to experience it, disconnecting them from their practices.

llama3.1 (8B) by Facebook:

>>> what does the I in LLM stand for?

In the context of natural language processing (NLP) and artificial 
intelligence, "LLM" typically stands for **L**arge **L**anguage **M**odel.

A Large Language Model is a type of machine learning model that has been 
trained on large datasets to understand and generate human-like language. 
These models are often used in applications such as text classification, 
sentiment analysis, question answering, and even chatbots like myself!

I'm glad you asked!

>>> but the I !!!!

In the specific case of an LLM being a Large **L**anguage **M**odel, the 
"LL" part doesn't explicitly mention the letter "I".

However, in the context of AI and ML models, there are other types of 
models that do involve the letter "I", such as:

* ILM: Image Language Model (combining computer vision with natural 
language processing)
* IMLM: Interpretable Machine Learning Model
* MLM: Masked Language Model (a specific type of LLM)

And then there's also...

* DALL-E, but that's a different story!

But in the case of the original LLM, it typically stands for Large 
**L**anguage **M**odel.

The article implies nobody even knew it already had this functionality. I’m sure the customers weren’t told either.

They kept trying to ruin my experience so I’ve switched to Invidious and Odysee.

Invidious only for the content creators that don’t crosspost to Odysee yet.

I am the admin of a website where we have a place where our users can post custom content and rate the content of others.

We have discussed how it works and should work many times and came to the conclusion that we’d never want it to be public. Any report of abuse will be checked by the website owner directly in the database and even admins don’t have full access. Everybody tries to stay as far away from the personal ratings as possible.

We also noticed that it would be a lot more fragile when there are not many voters. A whole group that is negative about something wouldn’t get as much harassment as a single person having a unique opinion.

On our website we have a comment section that isn’t anonymous, and we even noticed that people often don’t post something negative when it would be obvious that they are the only one who has voted/rated something. (“Negative” is almost always constructive in our case)

These are just a few things that I think add to this discussion.

Making a browser addon/extension wouldn’t be too hard if you can get the data somewhere. And then it’s just a click of a button to get the functionality.

It should actually be made more private.

Looking at the IP logs of the users on a website of mine shows that many people are already using IPv6 alongside IPv4. Some ISPs even don’t use IPv4 anymore unless you pay extra (Germany/Austria)

I just moved to Linux and started fresh.

The big mental change was instead of searching “sony vegas on linux please” I just started searching for “video editing software Linux”, and take any possible limitations and live with them, as I know it’s only temporary until Linux catches on.

App Stores are responsible for their content. If google simply vets the app store developers and their team and their product, they should have some kind of trust that whatever that app store supplies will be up to standards. But on the other hand, it’s actually none of their business to hold my hand for me when I want to do stuff with my device.

It’s more about getting the less tech-savy people away from the Play Store. It creates a road that app makers can take to remove the need of Google Services, eventually making gapps fully optional for all.

The last problem you raise seems more like a symptom of a problem than an actual problem. This kind of weird behavior is only possible because Google simply does not care about others. A simple “this app is managed by x” configuration setting would be easy enough to implement in Android.

Can you explain in technical detail why? Because I don’t see this really being much of an issue.

• Alternative stores in the App stores would still need to go trough Google’s process of being accepted. Notices can be added to their download pages and these stores can even be forced to undergo a stricter process to make sure they are legit.
• Downloading using a different front end changes absolutely nothing in terms of malware and junk.

Is this a copypasta?

Usually something like this would be enforced once in a centralized location (in the data layer / domain model), rather than at every call site.

True. Although not every endpoint is the same, nor is every website or service.

This gets tricky because in many jurisdictions, you need to ensure that you don’t just delete the user, but also any data associated with the user

GDPR specifically mentions user identifiable data. I don’t know about others.