HuggingFace already has something for that called HuggingFace Spaces, though I don't know how it is monetised. Even runs on different tiers of Nvidia GPUs already

Should've been a Nitter instance

We cannot choose a bed partner for you...

But a good mattress? Thát, we know everything about

(Standard advertising mumbo jumbo)

Use code DADDY for a surprise discount

In case you were wondering

Stable Diffusion when you ask it to generate a house:

This sounds solvable, doesn't it? Have the extension cable have a chip saying it can do X at maximum, then compare with whatever is to be extended and communicate the minimum of both upstream. Might not become a sleek cable-like design, but would extend the 240W cable with the extender safely staying at 120W

Holy shit, that has a name?!

... Am I supposed to seek medical advice now or what?

I remember Duo and Allo coexisting at some point in time. Duo had always been about video calls, and Allo had always been about chatting (unless it had a secret video callcall feature I forgot about).

Still a good joke though

The app doesn't even come with any removed channels?! What's next, ban VLC because it can play illegal videos? Ban Windows because it can connect to the internet and play pirated streams? Ban eyesight because you can watch an unlicensed broadcast? Removed politicians

This gave me a brilliant idea:

• Everyone adds a clause to whatever license they use stating "any part of this software may not be used for war purposes of any kind"
• We wait until software with these licences is spread across the supply chain of everything on Earth
• ...
• World peace, as no country would be legally allowed to wage war

Any tax imposed will always be split between seller and buyer in the market. If the buyer needs to pay a higher price they will buy less, but due to the increase being spent solely on the tax none of it ends up at the seller and they also earn less.

The degree to which each party "pays" for the tax depends on things like their ability to pivot to alternatives. Turns out that if you impose blanket tariffs on every single thing ever made anywhere on Earth all at once, and you have nowhere near the capabilities to produce all of that domestically in the short term, that you end up having to suck it up if you plan on buying anything (using parts) from abroad.

And I doubt such bold ideas as "let's upend entire global supply chains that have been built over decades on the vague notion that somehow the entire world collectively has been able to inflict harm upon the United States unnoticed and unpunished and I, the acting president of Venezuela, am the first American to ever notice this" uttered by someone who the rest of the world expects to be replaced by someone less... "imaginative" as this guy in less than 4 years (Lord what a long sentence) are enticing entrepreneurs to invest in moving every supply chain for every product on Earth to be entirely produced in the US.

As long as the rest of the world keeps producing as they are, you're dependent on American firms popping up to do it instead. But any businessowner of the scale required to be up for the task knows that proper international trade creates maximum wealth (which is extra nice for them because America is not traditionally known for redistributing this newfound wealth) and would prefer that. And if anyone willing to start one anyway despite all that also believes that this will all be over in 3 years, they'll never bother to engage in any process longer than that to start a business. And even despite all that, there's no guarantee that any American good will be of equal or better quality or price than a foreign good just because it was made fully in America. Especially if the idea is that this will be the case for everything on Earth. It's fully possible that you'll "hurt" the foreign companies (they'll just sell amongst themselves, it's the entire rest of the world, they'll figure something out) and end up in a situation where Americans have inferior goods at higher prices.

TL;DR: Tariffs do not necessarily lead to consumers paying for most or all of the tariff. Blanket tariffs just because are profoundly stupid and lead to consumers shouldering the burden.

(I don't know why I was moved to write such a long comment for such a minor technical difference)

Previous version did. Converted a friend's laptop from home (oem provided) to pro and my own from home (oem provided) to enterprise

My grandpa had developed the habit of falling out of his bed. The first time I was afraid that he was gonna die on the spot as I'd heard it, but it eventually became such a "regular" occurrence that I didn't think of immediate death anymore. This particular day, he'd fallen twice. They brought him to a nearby hospital to get a check-up. I was worried sick that this time something was actually wrong, or that he might've broken a bone or something. Turns out he was fine! No broken bones or anything. Just one teeny tiny minor issue...

When he was brought to the hospital, he was accidentally placed in the area with people who were brought there with covid. I hadn't been able to see him in months because of the restrictions, and even when I did go the months prior it was always with far distance, masks and in short bursts. I did everything I had been told to do to "keep him safe", "ease up the workload in the hospitals" and all those government campaigns and all that, only for him to die because of this (seeming) serious neglect from medical professionals.

Is it the case where they postponed the vote again because they anticipated it being turned down and needing to wait ages before being allowed to vote again?

If so, perhaps Poland could host the next vote, deliberately not postponing when it seems it's not going to pass. Maybe even start trolling and remove concessions that would've pleased other countries, forcing even more anti-votes and removing some risk of it passing unexpectedly (I don't know if that would be viable to actually implement though).

We need it to properly fail big time if we don't want to fear for our privacy every couple months

You can't just say "perchance" !!!

There are stories making the rounds of a YouTube channel in his name with two videos. One was something along the lines of "if you're setting this, I'm already captured", the other was set to premiere but the account got removed before it was public

98% of people I see leaving Twitter are headed for BlueSky, not Mastodon

How would blocking the pop-up be violating the law, though? If the pop-up doesn't show, you're not able to agree to cookies. You don't provide your explicit consent, therefore the website must assume you don't want to be tracked. The presence of the pop-up shouldn't be changing anything for people not willing to opt in, should it?

Or perhaps they're self-aware and have set it up to only opt you out by filling out the form, which you can't do if it isn't there. Or they just want you to agree to those "required" cookies? I don't know.

Have a banner with information on why it is blocked, and have the only accessible page be of the Online Safety Act. Then, make that page list what counts as "(teaching) circumvention methods" and say that teaching others how to do those things is illegal. If anyone is truly interested in seeking knowledge and learning, they will be able to figure it out elsewhere

My main problem is that, even if the technology were to work exactly as advertised, for the first time, PC gaming is moving to an era where our games no longer look the same.

We've all seen how every previous version of DLSS worked. The promise of lowering system requirements of high resolutions caught enough attention to draw a crowd, game devs used it to increase the system requirements for lower resolutions instead, AMD and Intel had to develop their own different implementation to stay competitive, and lots of mainstream gaming now requires DLSS and the like on all but the most expensive cards (sometimes even then).

The tech will get better. It always does. Whether that improvement will come fast or slow doesn't really matter. I think most points of controversy will fade as we're starting to see this applied to new games. After all, if a game were to be developed knowing that it would be using DLSS 5, the argument that artistic intent will be violated will hold less strength. If DLSS 5 were to ruin the artistic intent of a ground-up DLSS 5-developed game, it wouldn't be shipped. Future titles being "DLSS 5+-mindful" and future improvements to the AI used should get the technology working ever closer to the vision that is being advertised today.

But when that starts to happen, the story will play out exactly the same as it always has for DLSS. It creates results that are "good enough", so game devs move their development resources elsewhere. Then some management layer catches onto this tech, and finds out that they can just take these resources and move them right into their personal paycheck. End result is games that look generations old and barely run unless you use DLSS 5. By then FSR and XeSS will have to follow suit; if they don't, AMD and Intel will have the cards that are not only comparatively featureless and weaker, but also produce uglier visuals. But because these generative AI models will never be the exact same between these manufacturers, the output will also never be the same.

And then we move to the weird reality where games look different on different cards, and driver (or, in the case of consoles, system) updates could fundamentally change what games look like, independent of developer input (turns out that artistic integrity can still end up in jeopardy, huh). And unlike with the current AI upscalers we have, where there is a ground truth for the result and we can always obtain it with better hardware, DLSS 5-developed games will always have to rely on it for their "fancy effects" (read: looking like something other than a GameCube game in 2030).

That's my problem with DLSS 5

Wow, what an unfortunate coincidence. TIL.