I can imagine a lot of expletives in response to blatant hallucinations...
Probably a lot more than they're catching!
piss(ed|ing)? off|piece of (shit|crap|junk)|what the (fuck|hell)|
fucking? (broken|useless|terrible|awful|horrible)|fuck you|
screw (this|you)|so frustrating|this sucks|damn it)\b/
I own 8 Pis of various kinds, and 7 of them are busy running 24/7 doing various useful things.
What are they doing? Honestly... I've been interested in using one for a while - I like the concept and the company. But what is there that isn't better served by a VM on my workstation, or a service on my NAS, or an experiment on my spare mini pc (a Ryzen 5 with 16gb ram)? They do seem quite good when they fit the need, but I can't imagine wanting to run 7 of them at home, unless it's just for kicks.
I do have one project that'd suit it - converting my window shades to powered ones - but it's difficult to justify the cost, and I don't have free time to burn.
I missed this.. how are we supposed to make sense of these numbers from the expanded OS Version table?
Oh, I don't know... basic math, maybe?
So there's what, ~10 other versions of MacOS reporting in with each
Are you saying they're outright lying?
Why are you wasting your time and our time by pasting in partial numbers here rather than pasting them into a spreadsheet and summing the column? Does it add up or not?
I don't know what your comment means. Are you attributing the increase shown in usage stats to how they're collecting data? If so, I don't know how that changes the perception of "Skyrocketed"... it's still a 139% gain in that segment.
Maybe escalated. I don't think any trajectory that ends under 6% can really be called skyrocketing.
Perspective. Get some
Steam on Linux gaming usage jumped from 2.23% of the overall share to 5.33% in March.
That means it had a 139% gain in March (2.23 * 1.39 = the 3.1% gain).
IMO, they should have framed the headline that way. Within the Steam on Linux stats, that's a HUGE jump.
"... do you find this idea to be significantly more gruesome than harvesting organs from a dead body and using them in a different living person?
Gauging sentience is a necessary prerequisite for harvesting organs for transplantation.
Where do you get that idea? We struggle to gauge sentience in fully functional beings right now - it's not an easy boolean. And we harvest organs regularly as well, including from other species.
Regardless, do you have an answer to the question you quoted of mine? Namely, do you find this idea to be significantly more gruesome than harvesting organs from a dead body and using them in a different living person? And what if the person isn't fully dead yet (ex. braindead)? And what if it's organs from another species?
FWIW, I had suspected that the GP would likely find a lot of already established acceptable medical practices to be gruesome. And if so, that opinion carries a lot less weight. It's like if someone is opposed to RNA based vaccinations, but it turns out they're opposed to all vaccinations.
I dunno about so many people I really really like being ME and would like to do so for as long as possible....and would do almost anything to prolong that.
Sure, and I think most people, even those that don't want that, would understand that lots of people do. Wanting that is one thing - and it's arguably core to our survival instincts as a species - but have you given the inevitable consequences one iota of thought?
Please note, I'm not saying it's wrong to want that. I'm just shocked you have to ask the question:
... what's the controversy?
Just think about it. Think what it would mean if a significant portion of society wanted that and had ready access to it? Or if only the wealthy/powerful had access to it? It doesn't end well. And that's not even touching on whether or not the replacement body functions sexually (passing on braindead genes). There's more than a little controversy here.
At the moment, only Microsoft Office and Google Docs allow that.
It's a much longer list than that. Hell, even the products in TFS can do it (OnlyOffice and EuroOffice)!
What ever happened to "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission"...
Because it's like the phrase, "Devil hates a coward." It's an admission and excuse for being an ass.
Do you not possess an instinctive revulsion when presented with an idea so gruesome?
I'm curious... do you find this idea to be significantly more gruesome than harvesting organs from a dead body and using them in a different living person? Or how about using organs from other animals as transplants in humans?
Personally, those seem more gruesome to me than if I had a spare kidney grown for myself from my own DNA. You even noted that growing single organs would be more acceptable - so how about if they grew a kidney, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and stomach at the same time? The slope is getting very slippery now - add a few more organs and we're nearly to this replacement body concept!
FWIW, I'd oppose this project, but it's more because I don't trust them. I don't trust that they know what sentience is or how to gauge it, nor whether or not their creations small brains still have it. There's a whole lot more that can be done in the meantime, and I hope that will help prepare us for these dilemmas.
... or killing babies to harvest stem cells. Helping people conceive is also fine.
Devil's advocate... helping people conceive often involves fertilizing multiple eggs and throwing away viable embryos. At a minimum, you've slid into a grey area for your position. As you noted above, "You don't get to create and then destroy life just to prolong yours. It is a monstrous suggestion." Are viable embryos "life"?
Now, what if the embryos were genetically altered such that they won't produce much of a brain - something unlikely to be a sentient being? At what point is it no longer OK to discard that organ bag?
Who cares?
I mean, I prefer the brainless version and if so....what's the controversy?
Please SIGN ME THE FUCK UP!!
Frankly, I think your take on this IS the concern. It would be a near immediate upheaval of society, with those that can obtain it amassing great power over time, and population controls being needed once fewer people are dying.
As a side note, Cory Doctorow's Down And Out In Magic Kingdom and Walkaway both touch on some of these pseudo-immortal people in a very interesting way. Both books are terrific and even hold up to multiple readings.
A single RTX Pro 6000 doesn't even come close to comparing to a cluster of M3 Ultras.
That's not what I'm comparing. Based on GP, the price comparison is closer to a single RTX Pro 6000 vs a single Mac Studio. Alternatively, a cluster of 4-5 Mac Studios vs 4-5 RTX Pro 6000's. Can you point to some numbers on those? The Mac has the edge on memory, but I'm quite confident the RTX has a huge lead on GPU performance (and the memory is no slouch - just less of it per dollar).
I've seen demos on YouTube of someone hooking up like 4-5 Mac Studios that were maxed out M3 ultras I think and they were running extremely LARGE LLMs locally and getting cloud level numbers on them.
Of course these were like $10K each boxes.....but the level of model they were running would have cost my MANY more times trying to match them with NVIDIA GPU cards.....
So, 4-5 Mac Studios at about $10K/each.
You can get an NVIDIA RTX Pro 6000 with 96gb ram for about $9K.
It's hard to directly compare those two, but it doesn't seem like it'd, "cost MANY more times trying to match them with NVIDIA GPU cards."
Mac Studio has a leg up in that it's a whole computer, and it can be configured with $256gb ram (for an extra $2K).
NVIDIA *probably* has a big leg up on GPU performance.
IMHO, at the scale of building out a cluster of 10+ of these, I'd lean towards the NVIDIA GPU based solution; One off personal use at home, the Mac would be much more accessible and easier to use.
For your average computer user, it is a reasonable oversimplification. Or at least, it was. You're still not going to find everything, but containerized program options are helping for that crowd.
How is, "... the Linux desktop is a total mess when it comes to backward compatibility," a reasonable anything? What things aren't backward compatible on the Linux desktop?
If anything, forward compatibility might be a thing (Ex: running my 20yr old Linux install and expecting Chrome to easily install), but even Windows 10 is EOL and was only 10 years old at that point.
I've got my own complaints about Wayland and most desktops from the last decade, but none of that relates to your average user, and I'm certain it's not what GP was referring to. My complaints, FWIW: Wayland not directly supporting networked X, and desktops not supporting separate independent heads (ala pre-xinerama era).
System checkpoint complete.
