zalack

Because people have run analysis on the activity of the app already and the trackers don’t fire if you aren’t on the ad supported version.

All of the listed stuff is also required for serving ads through services like Google and pretty normal for ad-supported apps.

The data privacy stuff is all related to the plumbing required to serve ads.

If you pay for the ad-free version none of that stuff gets loaded.

Sync just added an option for that.

NVIDIA’s marketing overhypes, but their technical papers tend to be very solid. Obviously it always pays to remain skeptical but they have a good track record in this case.

Precision for what? Knowing their cron job will fire? Knowing what was wrong with the commands they sent? Neither of those are crazy precise or ambiguous statements?

The only highly precise thing that needs to happen is the alignment of the antenna but that system has been working for decades already and has been thoroughly tested.

NASA tends to be pretty straightforward when talking about risks, and if they feel like all the systems are in working order and there’s a good chance we’ll be back in contact with it, I think it’s worth talking them at their word.

Like yeah, it’s impressive they can aim an antenna that precisely, but using stars to orient an object is a very very well understood geometry problem. NASA has been using that technique at least as far back as Apollo

Lol. The knee-jerk contrarianism online really gets under my skin, especially when it’s towards experts.

Like yeah, sometimes experts are wrong or systems don’t behave as expected. But framing that as some sort of erudite insight really bugs me.

“I hope the recovery system works!” doesn’t need to be rewritten as “Mmm yes. But what these engineers haven’t considered is the possibility that they are wrong”.

This is one of those things that sounds meaningful, but can be said about literally any problem in any system. Not all knowledge requires the same level of precision for confidence.

If the engineers at NASA who are familiar with the system say this is a known error state that will be fixed the next time the system designed to correct it fires on its set schedule, there’s not a whole lot added by saying sure, but what if they’re wrong?

It’s just restating the table stakes of existence.

It’s a remake that uses new, higher quality assets though, so isn’t an option in this case.

Counterpoint: If I was one of the people in charge of keeping it secret and Trump got elected… I would just “forget” to ever schedule that briefing.

It’s worth pointing out that reproducible builds aren’t always guaranteed if software developers aren’t specifically programming with them in mind.

imagine a program that inserts randomness during compile time for seeds. Reach build would generate a different seed even from the same source code, and would fail being diffed against the actual release.

Or maybe the developer inserts information about the build environment for debugging such as the build time and exact OS version. This would cause verification builds to differ.

Rust (the programing language) has had a long history of working towards reproducible builds for software written in the language, for instance.

It’s one of those things that sounds straightforward and then pesky reality comes and fucks up your year.

The comment was about strategy, not objective.

IMO, it’s always better to try. Worst case scenario is that nothing changes, so no worse than if you didn’t. The only sane choice in that kind of situation is to pick the one with a chance for improvement.

In my experience, giving a shit about what you’re doing has a bunch of positing knock-on affects as well. You just end up feeling better about yourself. In your specific scenario it sounds like trying would also afford you the opportunity to live a happier life, and that’s worth chasing. The world is fucked, by scientists keep saying they if we act soon it’s not so fucked they we’re past the inflection point to un-fuck it.

It’s not that strange. A timeout occurs on several servers overnight, and maybe a bunch of Lemmy instances are all run in the same timezone, so all their admins wake up around the same time and fix it.

Well it’s a timeout, so by fixing it at the same time the admins have “synchronized” when timeouts across their servers are likely to occur again since it’s tangentially related to time. They’re likely to all fail again around the same moment.

It’s kind of similar to the thundering herd where a bunch of things getting errors will synchronize their retries in a giant herd and strain the server. It’s why good clients will add exponential backoff AND jitter (a little bit of randomness to when the retry is done, not just every x^2 seconds). That way if you have a million clients, it’s less likely that all 1,000,000 of them will attempt a retry at the extract same time, because they all got an error from your server at the same time when it failed.

Edit: looked at the ticket and it’s not exactly the kind of timeout I was thinking of.

This timeout might be caused by something that’s loosely a function of time or resources usage. If it’s resource usage, because the servers are federated, those spikes might happen across servers as everything is pushing events to subscribers. So, failure gets synchronized.

Or it could just be a coincidence. We as humans like to look for patterns in random events.

Apex Legends: Been playing since Season 0 with my SO and brother and I think it’s honestly the longest I’ve ever played a single game. The gunplay just feels so good.

Tears of the Kingdom: Still working my way through it, taking my time exploring. Honestly it’s such a great game, but I have to say the resource gathering is getting a little tedious. I like the weapon durability mechanic from the angle of being forced to switch up your fighting style, but I wish there was a way to repair weapons between fights.

I’m not sure it would be legal if they were forced to reveal medical information.

It’s because the producers want their counterparts spending time, energy, and perceived social capital negotiating over it rather than the things the Producers actually worry about having to give up.

IMO it’s pretty transparent, but creative people are pretty scared of AI right now so it might be a good bargaining tactic if they can get rank and file Union members to tie up the negotiatiors by reacting.

Crowd extensions are already pretty common with traditional VFX techniques.

I worked in Hollywood editorial for a bit and, IMO, the producers are playing up the AI stuff so that said stuff can be given to the writers and actors as a “victory” instead of the real spectres in the room:

• streaming residuals need to get the same payout and transparency as home video and syndication did

• streaming numbers need to be made available to creators to facilitate the above.

• the ‘mini-room’ system that totally disconnects writers from the productions they are writing for needs to be broken down.

I came in here annoyed at them gaming the system and you totally turned my perspective around on it. Makes perfect sense.

You have to start somewhere. Most people are too scared of corporate retaliation, so it’s a situation where no-one wants to jump first and be left out in the cold if everyone else chickens out.

In that sort of scenario, it takes one group deciding to take the risk that can help tip the next domino.

I posted a version of this in another thread:

I really think Lemmy, Kbin, and Mastodon need to figure out a way to have a default terms of service that ships with their product which forbids using the API to collect data for anything outside of user-facing social network interfaces, including account association heuristics and similar processes.

A way for users to set licenses on individual posts would be huge as well, with a default license instance admins can set.

That way for-profit instances could be forced to filter out posts with licenses that do not allow for-profit use. Honestly, even just a simple check mark “[ ] allow for-profit republication”, and have two licenses that can be attached: one that allows for-profit use and one that does not.

The fediverse should start baking in data control into it’s legal framework. Want to federate with Mastodon? You need to follow the ToS for what you can do with its posts. If we wanted to get really extreme we could even say the license should be copy-left. Any instance that wants to federate with a non-profit instances needs to also be non-profit.

That could block for-profit companies from becoming part of the network in the first place, even by use of stealth relay instances.

#threads