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.

While not entirely wrong, I’d take anything out of free market fundamentalists mouths like the ones at Mises with a gain of salt.

That’s the power of embracing the social construction of gender. You can be whatever you are and feel comfortable with yourself. That has given me far more life satisfaction than meeting any masculinity litmus test ever. Also leaves more time and emotional capacity for things and people that matter.

Not noticeable with always-on Tailscale with the default split-tunnel mode. That is when Tailscale is only used to access Tailscale machines and everything else is routed via the default route.

Google’s fine. They’re using ARM cores that are built on Samsung’s shittier manufacturing process. Next year they’re going TSMC which should improve power consumption dramatically. The lauded Dimensity 4000 also uses ARM cores, just newer and built on TSMC’s process. By the same token, newer Google SoCs should experience similar performance as they update the cores and manufacturing.

Same here. I literally swapped to Lawnchair to get rid of Google search from my home screen.

Unfortunately it doesn’t support Private Space yet.

One of them. The other is that this is open source which has certain implications that don’t exist exist for Nova.

The parent asked how do you define at all. What I wrote is just the dumbest way which demonstrates how it can be done. This dumb solution holds up even in your scenario because new media doesn’t gain significant user base every other year. If the list is outdated, containing Facebook and Instagram alone, that would still capture a huge part of the problem already. You can probably figure a slightly less dumb alternative that wouldn’t require amendments just to add another platform. Folks talking about the impossibility of defining something or implementing something in law often ignore obvious solutions, existing working processes, and present this false dichotomy of a perfect solution vs impossible to solve. Sometimes it’s a matter of ignorance, other times it’s driven by (conscious or subconscious) libertarian beliefs.

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

That’s funny but I’m not gonna argue on it. It’s easier to give another example. If you want to get informed try finding laws that depend on firm size and be convinced if you do.

Exactly. The path for success is clear as there’s clear need and public investment to back it up.

Apps typically don’t interact with the kernel. They interact with a C library like glibc, bionic or musl. So long as the kernel has a POSIX interface you should be able to compile the same app on different kernels. We do this with apps that run on Linux, BSD and QNX for example.

As for Android apps, you could extend that to running the Android runtime on top of different kernels. We did that with the Android runtime on QNX for BlackBerry 10 and we did it in a way that didn’t even require recompilation. That said Wiki says they don’t support Android apps. So if you meant Android apps they simply don’t.

Wow this is indeed a completely new OS - kernel, user space and all. I thought they’d use Linux and Qt but no.

Wrong as in not sound. An argument can be valid assuming its assumptions are true. The argument is the model, which really is a set of arguments. Its assumptions which are taken axiomatically are as you say impossible, therefore they are not true (which I called wrong). So the argument is not sound. I’m not saying anything different than what you said really, just used informal language. ☺️

For a firm that already have their own core designs that simply use the ARM instruction set, it might be easier to adapt to RISC-V. For a firm that licenses ARM cores on the other hand…

Are you telling me that the axioms behind the simplistic model are wrong?? shocked-pikachu.jpg

Jesus