Woman of mass destruction
Ah, these are rather common. Divorces are their weapon of choice.
More often than not, the man has his post-alimony earnings and net worth rolled back twenty years or more. Most never return to their prior economic level unless they’re young enough to compensate, and then they remain severely behind their peers, as well. Only the truly wealthy men - think $10M of net worth or more, and $250k+ earnings - can bounce back from a divorce like it’s nothing.
Considering that all other alternatives are either
I consider Signal to be the best option out there. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. It simply is the best general option out there, by far, for a general audience.
Yes, you can be totally secure, untraceable, and ultimately unfindable. But being cut into pieces, with each separate piece entombed in its own barrel of concrete, and each barrel dropped into a different oceanic trench, tends to be a bit beyond what I consider to be reasonable to achieve that.
AI is a solution in search of a problem.
The problem being CEOs asking themselves, “how do we acquire labour without having to pay for said labour, in order to maximize our own profit margins?”
AI was always meant to allow wealth to access labour without allowing labour to access wealth.
I, for one, am designing an entire production line of guillotines for when our capitalist system finally collapses. And for those in bunkers: a way of discovering air exchangers and all emergency exits so they can be filled with cement to turn bunkers into tombs. We need an effective method of culling sociopaths from our civilization, after all.
Insurers, he said, are already lobbying state-level insurance regulators to win a carve-out in business insurance liability policies so they are not obligated to cover AI-related workflows. “That kills the whole system,” Deeks said.
If insurers are going through extreme lengths to remove AI output from the list of things they will insure, this says everything about its future.
Because nothing says “effective risk management achieved” like an insurer signing off on, or forbidding the insurance of, an entire class of materials.
It’s a canary in a coal mine, like how insurers are now removing any ability for Floridians to insure against hurricanes or sea level rise, despite flat earthers screaming their heads off that climate change is a conspiracy and isn’t real.
(Note: I have seen the term “flat earther” starting to be used as a catch-all term for anyone who vehemently denies reality in spite of copious evidence that shows they are wholly and completely wrong)
ROTFLMAO 🤣🤣🤣
“Nasser” is definitely not the name I would have guessed.
That just defeats the IP part of the KVM and in that case you’d better stick with a traditional KVM.
Video cables and USB cables were never designed for a 20m run. Most have difficulties beyond a 2-5m distance.
My servers will be in my basement, at the other end of the house. My C&C machine will be in my office. The entire purpose of remote KVM is such that I don’t have to hoof it all the way down into the basement just to do something quick. Or go back-and-forth if there is something in my office I have to reference while doing the work.
In fact, I suspect that network KVM is exceedingly useful for anyone whose machines are more than five steps away. Even across the room makes a hell of a lot of sense.
You totally misunderstood the comment.
If all the KVM units were on an airgapped system, there is no way to reach those units other than physically sitting down at the C&C workstation that is meant to interface with them and display their output. Because that machine is also on the airgapped network, and is not reachable from the Internet.
It’s no different than a traditional KVM at that point, aside from that C&C machine being anywhere where Ethernet can reach (traditional KVM units being rather distance-constrained).
Now, if you need mobile/off-site access to this system, you put a second NIC into that C&C workstation. First one for the KVM network, the other for world+dog, and then you use a trusted remote-access system to access the C&C workstation, and block it off from anything else on that second Internet-accessible network as best as possible.
I mean, you want secure? Truly secure? Then disassemble all your computers, put each individual part into its own barrel of cement, and then drop each barrel into its own deep-oceanic abyssal trench. THAT is how you get true security.
For everything else, there are reasonable trade-offs that discourage all but nation-state players or people with wrenches.
Back in the mid-80s: CHUD. Cannibalistic Underground Humanoid Dwellers.
Being on the spectrum, this really messed me up, even though the special effects were cheesy even for that era. And I mean heck, I was also 15 at the time, and had never seen any kind of a horror movie before…
Just learned a short while ago that the term has been co-opted to describe conservatives in general, and white conservative men specifically. I now find myself in awe at how well-applied that term is.
Honourable mention to The Last Unicorn completely tearing me up with its ending, and throwing me into a two-month existential crisis bender that I don’t think I ever fully recovered from.
If betting on Polymarket, you would actually have to stump up that money first, and the other person would have to do the same with whatever bid they wanted to use. Then, in order to get any kind of reasonable payback, you would need thousands of other people to make a bet for or against, using their own money.
The payout isn’t on someone making a bet on themselves, no-one else would bet for or against that as the stakes are so small. The payout is on large-scale events that are - ostensibly - out of the control of the bettor or bettee.
Polymarket is no different than betting on the outcomes of horse races or sports games, it just opens up the thing being betted on to anything and everything. People will still bet. The key is how “un-rigged” it appears to be.
As I pointed out in another root comment, the average - depending on the model being tested - tends to sit between 60% and 80%. But this is with no restriction on source materials… the LLMs are essentially pulling from world+dog in that case
So this opens up an interesting option for users, in that hallucinations/inaccuracies can be controlled for and potentially reduced by as much as ⅔ simply by restricting the model to those documents/resources that the user is absolutely certain contains the correct answer.
I mean, 25% is still stupidly high. In any prior era, even 2.5% would have been an unacceptably high error rate for a business to stomach. But source-restriction seems to be a somewhat promising guardrail to use for the average user doing personal work.
How much do large language models actually hallucinate when answering questions grounded in provided documents?
Okay, this is looking promising, at least in terms of the most important qualifications being plainly stated in the opening line.
Because the amount of hallucinations/inaccuracies “in the wild” - depending on the model being tested - runs about 60-80%. But then again, this would be average use on generalized data sets, not questions focusing on specific documentation. So of course the “in the wild” questions will see a higher rate.
This also helps users, as it shows that hallucinations/inaccuracies can be reduced by as much as ⅔ by simply limiting LLMs to specific documentation that the user is certain contains the desired information, rather than letting them trawl world+dog.
Very interesting!
That may be the case, but the most irritating thing is that thy fill all available spots with the lowest-capacity chips that meet the requested provisioning spec, instead of taking the requested provisioning and using the fewest higher-capacity chips needed to meet the provisioning spec. The latter, at least, would leave spots open for an authorized repair location to manually solder on more approved chips of compatible spec.
Read it again. It occurs even with a full system wipe and re-install from Microsoft-direct media, or even a full hard drive swap. It is wholly independent of what is on the hard drive, the only restriction being that it can only successfully run when injected into Windows.
One example of many.
You must be new to tech to not remember this. Wasn’t all that long ago.
If you have the money and want simplicity, reliability, and interoperability, go for a Mac. Just clench your sphincter and maximize the RAM; min. 32Gb ought to be minimally appropriate for a 7-8yr lifespan of basic duties. And FFS, go for what your current data uses up ×2.5 or 1Tb, whichever is larger (vital performance reasons in that). Don’t get the smallest storage unless third-party upgrade options exist like for the Mac Mini M4. And remember: all RAM and a lot of storage is integrated these days, which is why you should always max it out; there is no upgrade path except wholesale replacement of the machine. CPU is largely immaterial unless you are doing truly heavy lifting like video editing or AI, so that can often be the lowest choice.
If you want freedom and truly unconstrained system, some form of Linux/BSD on a Framework system is the way to go. Or if a desktop, hand-assemble it yourself.
If you are going to stick with Windows, go for a business-class Dell. Trust me, it’ll be almost as $$$$ painful as a Mac, but these little f**kers are built to last. At least you can upgrade the RAM and on-board storage, although I honestly recommend not going under 32Gb for anything other than basic tasks. It’ll be a lot more zippy with 32Gb even if you spend the first week tearing all the AI and built-in spyware out of Windows.
You are correct, however they were malicious in nature and loaded on every boot from the UEFI/BIOS. They required Windows and auto-terminated the install if they already existed.
Goldfish memories by most muggles and normies.
Plus the latest shiny and feature FOMO.
And then you have procurement who are told to get the most at the least cost, allowing state-owned companies to undercut most competition. Without clearly-specified guidelines that exclude dangerous tech, most rank-and-file salarymen will be told by Dilbert bosses to order the hardware or look for a different job.
Yes, but if you are running Windows on them, do they still inject Chinese state-sponsored malware into Windows on every boot from UEFI/BIOS storage?
They were caught doing this on several occasions, to the point where Lenovo products are forbidden across significant swaths of the U.S. government and military.
And even if the Core Storage held everything straight out of the gate, you could do initial storage configured via RAID-10 using only 28× 30Tb drives.
In Canadian Pesos, that’s $34,000 before taxes for those drives. If the operating costs were in USD, that’s only 5 months of operating costs. Get a pair of used 4U 16-bay server boxes, and almost anything built within the last decade will work well as a SAN/NAS, especially if you use a specialized FOSS NAS OS.
A good strategy for migrating to BitTorrent would be to migrate the high value content first, so that bugs and failures ooze out of the woodwork as rapidly as possible. This would also allow you to build the NAS/SAN data storage boxes over time, one at a time, instead of all at once. And you can start with repurposed desktops as the seedbox itself and upgrade to more RAM once the BitTorrent client grows beyond the box’s initial resources. This stepwise growth would also give you the opportunity to work out any kinks and gotchas that you failed to anticipate.
For example, the BitTorrent client you choose to run on the seedbox itself will be a critical importance. I have found, through my own use of multiple clients, that by far the most aggressive BitTorrent client I have ever come across has been BiglyBT. I am able to achieve a ratio in weeks and sometimes even days the most other clients require years or even decades to achieve. For something seeding out, there is literally nothing better.
As an example: when MyAnonamouse banned BiglyBT, I tried an experiment, downloading the same movie file with several different torrent clients. After a full year of seeding, the runner-up was qBittorrent, with a ratio of 0.2. BiglyBT? A ratio of 870.
Same file, same super-seeding, but a massive difference between BiglyBT and pretty much anything else out there.
It’s a shame that so many closed trackers ban BiglyBT. It is absolutely an overall benefit to the ecosystem.
…When mentally ill people are put in charge of the nation’s government…