This is beautiful! It’s like a textbook example for everyone paying attention to draw crisp conclusions for how the system works.

LMAO

Every time I hear a junior developer say we should rewrite something they have made 0.1 effort understanding, I thank the JS world for not giving a generation or two of developers a well thought out application development framework.

You lost me at shitting on legacy code. My brother in Tux, we don’t rewrite code willy-nilly in the FOSS world either and for a good reason. New code always means new bugs. A shit ton of the underlying code in your Linux OS was written one or more decades ago.

I vomit in my mouth every time I see these dumbasses.

Try to come up with a reasonable process for transitioning between the thresholds or stop pretending you’re interested in anything but providing your point.

Agreed. I’ve grown up with the development of the WWW and where we are today is completely different than where we used to be in the 90s and 2000s. The consolidation, universal access and the profit maximization via rage farming has put societies globally in an unprecedentedly precarious position. This isn’t your uncle’s Internet anymore. It’s a hyper-personalized engagement-maximizing corporate experience for all but a small fraction of people who were lucky enough to escape it. Anyone feeling I’m overreacting should spend an hour with their old account on Facebook.

To the “can’t enforce this because it can be circumvented” argument - this is missing the point of most laws. The intention is to apply to the majority, not to be foolproof. Getting most to stop a harmful behavior already gets us most of the benefits. We can never stop everyone.

Number of users is an obvious example. There are others.

This is straight up standard right wing propaganda. A much simpler explanation is that the platforms are feeding people false realities for profit. Rage gets the most engagement. Right wing propaganda works extremely well for that and as an added benefit it produces cohorts who vote in the interest of the platform owners. It’s a twofer.

I find the intermediary classification a bit unconvincing and perhaps unintentionally misleading. It sounds like a nice framework to look at the world and it does describe the particular domain alright and it allows for drawing useful conclusions. Unfortunately solving the problems it highlights would produce marginal gains because I think intermediaries as described are just a special case of something more general. Firms of any kind are acting as intermediaries in the exchange of the products of people’s labor. The effects are all the same, these intermediaries make the exchange easier at the expense of keeping some of the labor products from one end or the other, but usually both. It seems to me that the problem of the platform intermediaries power is just a special case of the power of firms over labor. Which really reduces to the problem of the power of capital over labor. If we somehow solve the platform intermediaries problem, we leave the general problem unsolved. And then if we don’t think in terms of the general problem, we can’t even solve the special problem because the tools needed are controlled by capital. That is the lawmakers who could change the law are paid by the powerful intermediaries (firms) and not by the people on either end of the intermediaries. If we hope to ever solve any of this I think we have to look at the world through the general lens and focus on ways to reduce the amount of capital accumulated by firms from people’s labor. Fortunately there are well known solutions for that and they’re actionable for most people.

But the relationship between the two continued to sour, with Gallant criticizing Netanyahu for failing to put forward a vision for the Gaza Strip after Israel defeated Hamas, and failing to reach a cease-fire deal to release hostages held by Hamas. They also clashed over the role of ultra-Orthodox men in the Israeli army – a key segment of Netanyahu’s ruling political bloc.

So Yoav “Human animals” Gallant seems to be the better of the two.

I see. Makes sense.

If you need to serve only one user at the time, ollama +Webui works great. If you need multiple users at the same time, check out vLLM.

Why can’t it serve multiple users? Open Web UI seems to support multiple users.

This is the right way to optimize performance. Write everything in a decent higher level language, to achieve good maintainability. Then profile for hotspots, separate them in well defined modules and optimize the shit out of them, even if it takes assembly inlining. The ugly stays its own box and you don’t spend time optimizing stuff that doesn’t need optimization.

This came out of what Haaretz’es publisher said at a conference in London. Not out of something published in the paper.

They’re separate. You can treat them as alternative subs.

When I read, I subscribe to all alternatives on a topic I care about - e.g. Android. Then browsing the Subscribed fees would show me posts from all of them.

When I post, I check their user/month count in order to decide which one to post to. If I’m posting something important, I’d cross post it to the others, just like people do to similar alternative subreddits.

Sounds like a reasonable decision. The Hamas-run label was used to denote that the death toll coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry was not very trustworthy. The numbers have since been declared trustworthy by pretty much any credible agency around the world but the most invested hasbaristas. Therefore today the label has become misleading when it comes to this information. It adds uncertainty to trustworthy information which only serves the goals of the hasbaristas who seek to convince that the death toll is significantly lower.

Here’s one way to do it. The legislators define a list. Products in the list are social media. The list is referenced in the law.

Alternative Title: “Bluesky happy to use the standard playbook so long as there’s still bozos willing to contribute free labor for their profit.”

TFTFY