i’ve used Chezmoi for years now pretty successfully. works on my Mac and Linux machines. it probably could be made to work on Windows. i am transitioning to NixOS, but i’ll probably keep using it anyway, since i still have Macs for work (and because they’re great laptops don’t @ me). the only real downside is that it only works for the home folder, so i have to manually control stuff for /etc, but i generally prefer user configuration for most tools anyway.

i had messed around with Ansible for this in the past, but i didn’t really like it for this use case. it’s been a while tho so it’s hard to say why.

not to pile on, but you might also look at GNU Stow. i decided against it, but it’s there.

obligatory i s’pose: https://github.com/covercash2/dotfiles

language is intrinsically tied to culture, history, and group identity, so any concept that is expressed through a certain linguistic system is inseparable from its cultural roots

i feel like this is a big part of it. it reminds me of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis. search results and neural networks are susceptible to bias just like a human is; “garbage in garbage out” as they say.

the quote directly after mentions that newer or more precise searches produce more coherent results across languages. that reminds me of the time i got curious and looked up Marxism on Conservapedia. as you might expect, the high level descriptions of Marxism are highly critical and include a lot of bias, but interestingly once you dig down to concepts like historical materialism etc it gets harder to spin, since popular media narratives largely ignore those details and any “spin” would likely be blatant falsehood.

the author of the article seems to really want there to be a malicious conspiratorial effort to suppress information, and, while that may be true in some cases, it just doesn’t seem feasible at scale. this is good to call out, but i don’t think these people who concern their lives with the research and advancement of language concepts are sleeping on the fact that bias exists.

it’s super weird that people think LLMs are so fundamentally different from neural networks, the underlying technology. neural network architectures are constantly improving, and LLMs are just a product of a ton of research and an emergence after the discovery of the transformer architecture. what LLMs have shown us is that we’re definitely on the right track using neural networks to solve a wide range of problems classified as “AI”

most Zionists i’ve met are white Protestants, and most Jews i’ve met aren’t Zionists…

lol this is like Ben Shapiro telling people in areas threatened by climate change to sell their houses. “to who? fucking Aqua Man?”

best case you’ll get $10 and whoever bought it will end up back here

Users who need to run their application in Python 2 should do so on a platform that offers support for it

damn go off

this comment traveled in time from 2001 lol

simply not true. they’re no angels or open source champions, but come on.

if a player brought it up as an issue, i’d probably go back on it. i’m an easy DM. i like Rule of Cool, but it’s about everyone having a good time ultimately, whatever that means to them

sure it does. it won’t tell you how to build a bomb or demonstrate explicit biases that have been fine tuned out of it. the problem is McDonald’s isn’t an AI company and probably is just using ChatGPT on the backend, and GPT doesn’t give a shit about bacon ice cream out of the box.

even though those are rules as written, i like to honor the crits, with a bit of nuance. if you’re super stealthy and roll a 1, maybe it makes a small noise but doesn’t cause an alarm. if you’re dumping strength on your wet noodle wizard, maybe you’re able to move that heavy thing an inch on a 20. it’s always situational though. people get excited to see a crit, and i think it makes it more fun.

ah yeah. maybe less well known, but i had a dev kit from Qualcomm that came with Ubuntu

not likely. i think it requires a lot of systems working together

always? Android runs a linux kernel, and they support all kinds of embedded systems that run Linux.

pretty standard compared to OSs like Android and iOS. i think the mobile OSs, at least recently, have done better at this; they don’t ask for permission until they need it. want to import bookmarks? i need file system access for that. want to open your webcam? i need device access. doing it all upfront leads to all the problems mentioned in this thread: unclear as to why, easy to forget what access you’ve given, no ability to deny a subset of options, etc.

nushell is excellent for dealing with structured data. it’s also great as a scripting language.

not sure what you mean by expensive. i run language models on my laptop that are pretty good at this type of task. and, yes, these models are infinitely easier and cheaper ultimately than trying to change the human proclivity for attention seeking behavior.

you’ve not seen the type of email chains i get at work. personally i think it should be illegal to respond-all to an email chain with hundreds of people with “Great job team!!! 🎉”. but it would be great to have a LM to read it near instantaneously for me to be like “oh yeah there was a product release and here’s a few relevant metrics”. doesn’t matter if it’s 100% in on every subtle detail, and a decent summary could tell me where or if i even should dig into details.

yeah i see that too. it seems like mostly a reactionary viewpoint. the reaction is understandable to a point since a lot of the “AI” features are half baked and forced on the user. to that point i don’t think GNOME etc should be scrambling to add copies of these features.

what i would love to see is more engagement around additional pieces of software that are supplemental. for example, i would love if i could install a daemon that indexes my notes and allows me to do semantic search. or something similar with my images.

the problems with AI features aren’t within the tech itself but in the surrounding politics. it’s become commonplace for “responsible” AI companies like OpenAI to not even produce papers around their tech (product announcement blogs that are vaguely scientific don’t count), much less source code, weights, and details on training data. and even when Meta releases their weights, they don’t specify their datasets. the rat race to see who can make a decent product with this amazing tech has made the whole industry a bunch of pearl clutching FOMO based tweakers. that sparks a comparison to blockchain, which is fair from the perspective of someone who hasn’t studied the tech or simply hasn’t seen a product that is relevant to them. but even those people will look at something fantastical like ChatGPT as if it’s pedestrian or unimpressive because when i asked it to write an implementation of the HTTP spec in the style of Fetty Wap it didn’t run perfectly the first time.

a lot of things are unknown.

i’d be very surprised if it doesn’t have an opt out.

a point i was trying to make is that a lot of this info already exists on their servers, and your trust in the privacy of that is what it is. if you don’t trust them that it’s run on per user virtualized compute, that it’s e2e encrypted, or that they’re using local models i don’t know what to tell you. the model isn’t hoovering up your messages and sending them back to Apple unencrypted. it doesn’t need to for these features.

all that said, this is just what they’ve told us, and there aren’t many people who know exactly what the implementation details are.

the privacy issue with Recall, as i said, is that it collects a ton of data passively, without explicit consent. if i open my KeePass database on a Recall enabled machine, i have little assurance that this bot doesn’t know my Gmail password. this bot uses existing data, in controlled systems. that’s the difference. sure maybe people see Apple as more trustworthy, but maybe sociology has something to do with your reaction to it as well.