I just let KDE handle it. I think… it was a long time ago. I’ll turn on my PC and check my fstab in a sec.

But yeah. I’d recommend a fresh install, with the philosophy of “don’t mess with the defaults unless it isn’t working, or you have a very good reason.” As not only are CachyOS defaults pretty good, but they’re set up in a way so the system will maintain itself through updates.

It’s (ironically) very different than my experience with Ubuntu, where I had to manually maintain a bunch of stuff and fight the system packages.

I think I may have installed ntfs-3g before the reboot

Isn’t this the legacy driver? Why do you need it?

…Respectfully, it feels like you’re falling into the classic Arch trap of “messing with too much stuff.”

I mount a whole bunch of NTFS Sata partitions at boot, on CachyOS, and they don’t need a password or FUSE driver package or anything. It just works out of the box. The only thing I chose to mess with was adding a single mount flag in fstab, and only so it plays with Windows permissions better.

“Scam the rich,” perhaps?

They’re also talking about data centers in space, yet are too cheap to use anything but evaporative cooling + supplemental gas generators on Earth.

I did some math on, amongst other things, launch costs for an Earth-data center sized installation, or the area needed to radiatively cool it, and it is fun:

https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/heatrad.php

See that power of four? Areas get very large, like kilometers wide, if you want your coolant below a typical 300K (~30C), and apparently no one told Bezos that little detail.

Those space construction startups know what they’re doing. They’re selling billionaires a bridge to nowhere; and it’s working.

Oh, he knows. To some extent.

I don’t think Netanyahu is a “true fundamentalist” like the far right part of the government. He’s Machiavellian, a suvivalist. Perhaps it’s all some means to an end, but I think Israel’s international toxicity is very much factored into his political calculus.

I don’t mean to question his faith, and I hate to sound cynical, but he’s got a looong trail of political decisions that sure speak to that.

It’ll be interesting to see how Discord enshittifies.

It’s the default destination for the niche-interest “cozy web,” and they could go down several paths.

Friend, I’m going to be blunt: I think you may have spent time creating this with help from an LLM, and it told you too much of what you want to hear because that’s what they’re literally trained to do.

As an example…”relativistic coherence?” Computational cycles and SHA512 checksums and bit flips and prime instances? You are mixing modern technical terms and highly speculative, theoretical concepts in a way that… just isn’t really compatible.

And the text, from what I can parse, is similar. It mixes a lot of contemporary “anthropic” concepts (money, the 24 hour day, and so on), terms that loosely apply to text LLMs, and a few highly speculative concepts that may or may not even apply to the future.

If you are concerned about AI safety, I think you should split your attention between contemporary, concrete systems we have now and the more abstract, philosophical research that’s been going on even before the LLM craze started. Not mix them together.

Look into what local LLM tweakers are doing. With, for instance, alignment datasets, experiments on “raw” pretrains, or more cutting edge abliration like: https://github.com/p-e-w/heretic

In other words, look at the concrete, and how actual safety systems can be applied now. Outlines like yours are interesting, but they can’t actually be applied or enforced.

And on the philosophical side, basically ignore any institute or effort started after 2021, when all the “Tech Bro” hype and the release of ChatGPT 3.5 in 2022 muddied the waters. But there was plenty of safety research going on before then. There are already many documents/ideas similar to what you’re getting at in your outlines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_safety

I don’t really understand what the documents are practically supposed to be or how they could be “red teamed.”

1st is a bunch of quotes, 3rd is QA.

Is the 2nd one a system prompt?

It’ll literally be a criminal hub, with a bunch of anonymized posts joking about dodging corpos. Probably.

And owls. Still owls.

FBI? No, I am not opening up.

What about sub elements?

You have metal and earth, and then metalloids.

Elements with a lot of alpha or beta emissions are lighting.

First thing, Lemmy is in need of content and likes recruiting. Hence you got 315 replies, heh.

Basically, if you aren’t a bigot, you don’t have to worry about what you say. You can be politically incorrect in any direction and not get a global/shadowban from the Fediverse.

Each instance has its own flavor and etiquette.

Thanks! It was Tanzania.

Or snakes. Like, big snakes.

I swear, if a housecat sees a noodle, some “I’m born to paw this to death” switch goes off in their heads.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rH5GxeyusM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIcpg_pFbF8

Interestingly, big cats aren’t like that. They don’t like snakes, and I think they’re too big to dodge them.

literal tens of tons half-burnt uranium that takes way too long to decay to safe level.

I mean, breeder reactors? Also it’s still not that much, especially compared to the economics of everything else.

Anyway, what I didn’t realize was these are 14 MeV neutrons, unless they crack D-D fusion. That’s… very different. That’s more destructive, and harder to deal with, than fission neutrons.

…To expand on this, I’m somewhat skeptical of all nuclear now. It’s fine, it works great, fusion is a noble pursuit. But it just takes too long to set up to stave off carbon emissions.

SLIGHT NSFW WARNING

This year, I had the privilege of seeing such friendliness in person:

Shot on an ooold camera that still works.

I just realized…

I don’t like fusion.

They say it’s clean, but 14.1 MeV neutrons are no joke.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature#Fast

14.1 MeV neutrons have about 10 times as much energy as fission neutrons, and they are very effective at fissioning even non-fissile heavy nuclei. These high-energy fissions also produce more neutrons on average than fissions by lower-energy neutrons. D–T fusion neutron sources, such as proposed tokamak power reactors, are therefore useful for transmutation of transuranic waste. 14.1 MeV neutrons can also produce neutrons by knocking them loose from nuclei.

On the other hand, these very high-energy neutrons are less likely to simply be captured without causing fission or spallation. For these reasons, nuclear weapon design extensively uses D–T fusion 14.1 MeV neutrons to cause more fission. Fusion neutrons are able to cause fission in ordinarily non-fissile materials, such as depleted uranium (uranium-238), and these materials have been used in the jackets of thermonuclear weapons. Fusion neutrons also can cause fission in substances that are unsuitable or difficult to make into primary fission bombs, such as reactor grade plutonium. This physical fact thus causes ordinary non-weapons grade materials to become of concern in certain nuclear proliferation discussions and treaties.

How are reaction chambers supposed to deal with that? It’s not very sustainable if the whole assembly breaks down and turns radioactive over time.

I mean, not necessarily.

They could use a magnetohydrodynamic generator to siphon off some of the helium, though TBH it’s better suited for fission:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_generator

Oops, thanks.

The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.

…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?

That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv’s nice frontend is literally the stack to do it. And they have the name recognition to draw people in.

Apparently, this is hardly hyperbole. For example: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377162

Talk about arrogance. In the window paradigm, only a few desktops ever REQUIRED a similar look and feel for all windows. Apple was the worst offender for that. I suggest that if Edmundson wants a similar look and feel, he should go get himself a Mac and stop mucking up KDE.

From a quick look at the proposed patch - and obviously without having the full picture - it’s true that it would add some complexity. But it’s code for the sake of people’s convenience, not the other way around, right? IMHO, as long as:

• shading is off by default,
• users get a clear message about limitations and SSD/CSD complications before enabling it,
• the implementation doesn’t introduce impossible-to-maintain logic and limits some weird edge cases like resizing a shaded window, then it’s worth doing.