If a person "trains" on other creatives' works, they can produce output at the rate of one person. This presents a natural ceiling for the potential impact on those creatives' works, both regarding the amount of competing works, and the number of creatives whose works are impacted (since one person can't "train" on the output of all creatives).
That's not the case with AI models. They can be infinitely replicated AND train on the output of all creatives. A comparable situation isn't one human learning from another human, it's millions of humans learning from every human. Only those humans don't even have to get paid, all their payment is funneled upwards.
It's not one artist vs. another artist, it's one artist against an army of infinitely replicable artists.
> If the gains from AI were shared even a little with the regular people, they might not have the deep sense of unease and sometimes open hostility that we are seeing now.
Additionally the AIs are trained on creations by many of those same regular people. They're not just seeing the profits funnelled upwards, some of those profits are being generated through their own works!
And before someone tries to argue "that's just how art etc. work" - sure, but the difference is quantity. If I get inspired by another artist, I can generate output at the speed of one artist. With current AI models, it's like a big company is training millions of artists on your style to pump out new pieces as fast as possible.
Don't you worry - there are many, many ways for GPUs to inject ads :)
Of course you'll first have to dismiss the ad injected by your monitor manufacturer, but before that you'll have to dismiss the ad injected by your mouse manufacturer (or keyboard if you prefer that). Whoops, looks like your OS ads refreshed - drink another verification can! Just in time for your ISP to inject ads. But to dismiss them, first you have to dismiss the ad injected by your mouse manufacturer.
Oh look, another GPU ad! I feel lucky that all these companies want to provide me with the best information about new products and services.
I've thought the same multiple times over the last few years. I can't remember all the events, but it was at least four separate times, most notably with January 6th. Every time it went like this:
1. Users on /r/conservative (& other conservative forums) show a surprisingly negative reaction to something done by the GOP
2. Over the next few days, their media starts repeating individual social media responses that seem to find agreement. They don't have to make sense, they just have to terminate the thought.
3. In the communities more and more voices spread those same responses while shouting down reasonable commenters from 1., declaring them "non-MAGA" or "RINOs"
4. After a few days/weeks, all opposing voices have been drowned out, and their moderation teams delete any posts that could sway their opinion/goes against the current.
- Misfolding & Conversion: A normal, functional prion protein (PrP C) changes shape into a misfolded, pathogenic form (PrP Sc), which acts as a template to convert more PrP C into PrP Sc.
- Self-Propagation: The core of prion dynamics is this autocatalytic cycle, where PrP Sc recruits and converts normal PrP C, leading to exponential growth.
Aggregation: These misfolded proteins clump together, forming large aggregates (amyloid) that deposit in the brain, causing neurodegeneration.
- Fragmentation: For propagation to continue, large aggregates must break down (fragment) into smaller pieces (seeds) that can initiate new conversion cycles, a process crucial for disease progression and influenced by chaperones like Hsp104 in yeast.
The group you are describing would indeed need to remove the misfolded protein for survival.
In terms of hope:
".... For propagation to continue, large aggregates must break down (fragment) into smaller pieces (seeds) that can initiate new conversion cycles"
In other words, the Republican party could be looking at serious fracturing into many many post-mango camps, ala Margerie Taylor Green leaving the MAGA camp. These dynamics are probably exactly how the conservatives got co-opted by the MAGA strain.
Maybe I'm misreading this article, but where does it actually say that anything UBI-related failed? The titular "failure" of the experiment is apparently:
> While the Ontario’s Basic Income experiment was hardly the only one of its kind, it was the largest government-run experiment. It was also one of the few to be originally designed as a randomised clinical trial. Using administrative records, interviews and measures collected directly from participants, the pilot evaluation team was mandated to consider changes in participants’ food security, stress and anxiety, mental health, health and healthcare usage, housing stability, education and training, as well as employment and labour market participation. The results of the experiment were to be made public in 2020.
> However, in July 2018, the incoming government announced the cancellation of the pilot programme, with final payments to be made in March 2019. The newly elected legislators said that the programme was “a disincentive to get people back on track” and that they had heard from ministry staff that it did not help people become “independent contributors to the economy”. The move was decried by others as premature. Programme recipients asked the court to overturn the cancellation but were unsuccessful.
So according to the article, a new government decided to stop the experiment not based on the collected data, but on their political position and vibes. Is there any further failure described in the article?
Not sure the median makes sense for this argument. Say 51% of corporate landlords let out 1 property, and 49% let out 100 - most people will live in a property owned by the 49%. The absolute number of landlords in the 51% would be mostly meaningless.
I'm not sure where some of these "contradictions" come from, as I e.g. can't find anything about them having "redesigned the desktop" on the page with those keywords. But for the rest, I don't see how they are contradictory - at least if you've spent a few seconds to understand them.
> Such as their claim that updates are a “single iso”
Updates literally are a "single image" (didn't see "iso" mentioned). Where is the contradiction?
> and also their claim about a single App Store, and they then go on to discuss flatpak and homebrew package management.
There literally is a single app store. Homebrew is not used to install apps, only for CLI tools. Flatpak is the single app store which users use to install apps (through Bazaar). Where is the contradiction?
> And there’s also the claims that it brings something totally new while then going on to describe core Linux features.
Can you explain what exactly you're referring to?
> Also the scripts running “non intrusively” yet that’s just what you’d expect any seasoned admin to do. This isn’t a headline feature unless you’re new to the game.
This distribution isn't targeted at "seasoned admins", so why wouldn't they mention something relevant to their target group? No contradiction here.
Yeah I was typing from memory on phone. So the citations aren’t going to be verbatim.
> Updates literally are a "single image" (didn't see "iso" mentioned). Where is the contradiction?
Because that’s not how homebrew works. And you can’t have a single image if you’re expecting people to install apps via their multiple different endorsed delivery mechanisms.
> There literally is a single app store. Homebrew is not used to install apps, only for CLI tools. Flatpak is the single app store which users use to install apps (through Bazaar). Where is the contradiction?
Because an App Store is ostensibly just a package manager. I get they’re making a distinction between desktop apps and CLI (homebrew does GUI apps too by the way), but when their emphasis is on “easy” and “one way to do things”, having two different ways to install apps contradicts their mission statement.
If they actually cared about this mission statement AND had half the competence they claim, they’d build a unified UI that supports all use cases rather than expect people to learn those different tools and why it matters that they’re different.
> Can you explain what exactly you're referring to?
“Aurora is a paradigm shift for Linux.
To rethink the Linux Desktop experience from the ground up, we built Aurora on new technology and principles.”
Bazaar, Plasma, homebrew, etc. none of this is unique to Thor distribution.
They also boast about being able to rollback updates. That isn’t new to Linux either. Though I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ve created a smoother default experience here.
> This distribution isn't targeted at "seasoned admins", so why wouldn't they mention something relevant to their target group? No contradiction here.
i didn’t say thy are targeting seasoned admins. I said seasoned admins would take for granted that’s how you’d write that code. So wouldn’t even consider it something to announce.
The only reason you’d announce it would be because you hadn’t worked in this space before and feel a sense of achievement doing the bloody obvious. (And to be clear, I have zero issue with people having projects like these to learn new skills)
Also, I clearly didn’t say “literally everything was a contradiction.”
I am interested who you think this is targeting. Because they do specifically say this is for developers (amongst other people). And the reason they give (VSCode) is a pretty noob argument. If you can’t figure out how to install an IDE then you’re clearly tech savvy enough to be a developer.
the updates being a single image has nothing to do with homebrew. The OS is a single image that gets updated, that 100% the same that every user will get daily or weekly (depending on what branch/stream you are on).
I get that. But my point is if you’ve got 100+ bits of software installed via homebrew and flatpak, then it’s a bit of a stretch to say updates are a single image.
I’m sure there is a reason for their design but the messaging is all over the place. They boast about things that you should expect to happen (like testing packages before releasing - even bleeding edge distros do this) and throw superlatives around with little substance to back them up while quoting pretty run-of-the-mill choices like KDE and VSCode. It leaves an overall impression that the people behind it can’t be taken to seriously.
If that’s unfair then I’m sorry. But it’s their job to convince me that I should trust them with something as important as an OS. It’s not my job to give them the benefit of the doubt.
If that distro is even just half as good as it claims, then they need to seriously redesign the entire landing page to be more focused on what those gains are. And I say this as someone who's ran several open source projects myself and has immense difficulties designing landing pages for them. I know it's a hard thing to get right. In fact I think it's actually harder than creating a new distro.
> Because that’s not how homebrew works. And you can’t have a single image if you’re expecting people to install apps via their multiple different endorsed delivery mechanisms.
As the other poster said, Homebrew has nothing to do with this. Please read up on how the technology works before declaring this a contradiction.
> Because an App Store is ostensibly just a package manager. I get they’re making a distinction between desktop apps and CLI (homebrew does GUI apps too by the way), but when their emphasis is on “easy” and “one way to do things”, having two different ways to install apps contradicts their mission statement.
You don't install the same things using Homebrew and Flatpak. You install apps through Flatpak, and non-apps through Homebrew etc. There aren't two ways to install apps.
Are you referring to "casks" when talking about GUI apps through Homebrew? Is that even supported on Linux?
> If they actually cared about this mission statement AND had half the competence they claim, they’d build a unified UI that supports all use cases rather than expect people to learn those different tools and why it matters that they’re different.
No, you're just arbitrarily asking for them to make changes based on your misunderstandings of the use cases of each tool.
> The only reason you’d announce it would be because you hadn’t worked in this space before and feel a sense of achievement doing the bloody obvious. (And to be clear, I have zero issue with people having projects like these to learn new skills)
No, that's not the only reason, but you're looking at the project with an extremely narrow lense while not spending any time actually looking into the technology and project, so I can understand that it's the only reason you see.
> I am interested who you think this is targeting. Because they do specifically say this is for developers (amongst other people). And the reason they give (VSCode) is a pretty noob argument. If you can’t figure out how to install an IDE then you’re clearly tech savvy enough to be a developer.
If you'd spend 5 seconds reading up on the technology, you could easily steelman a better argument.
> You don't install the same things using Homebrew and Flatpak. You install apps through Flatpak, and non-apps through Homebrew etc. There aren't two ways to install apps.
except from a user perspective there is. You have to first consider what type of app you want, and then search for it using the correct package manager.
As I said, if they had a single UI that managed both flatpak and homebrew, then it would be different. Users shouldn’t need to know which technology was used to download and install a particular package - that's a technical distinction that should be abstracted away by the "App Store".
Now I completely understand why they've taken the approach they have. But they've made a technical decision to fragment the UX while advertising the app store for its simplicity.
> No, you're just arbitrarily asking for them to make changes based on your misunderstandings of the use cases of each tool.
I'm not asking them to make any changes and I definitely do not misunderstand these tools (fun fact: I maintain a few open source projects -- so I'm probably more familiar than most with how brew et al actually work).
I'm simply pointing out how their advertising doesn't gel with the reality of the UX they're providing. It is feedback, not a request nor demand.
But for what it's worth, if they did decide they wanted to look into the possibility or a "single pane of glass" for all app management, then KDE already has a tool that might work here and which already supports pulling from different sources via extensions: Discover (https://apps.kde.org/discover). So it might be worth them taking a look at the viability of use that (again, just feedback, not a request).
> No, that's not the only reason
That’s not a rebuttal. It’s just a contradiction.
> you're looking at the project with an extremely narrow lense
I’m really not. I’m comparing it against my 30 years of professional experience with Linux (and UNIX as a whole) administration and highlighting areas where their docs are coming across as amateurish.
I’m open to being proven there there is more going on than appears, but your replies amount to “you’re wrong” without actually providing any detail why.
I run Linux workstations and because I don't get paid for keeping my workstation up to date, I do look for something that's as low-effort to maintain as possible. So it's quite possible I'm the target audience for Aurora. But the project does such a poor job of explaining why I should use this instead of any of the hundreds of other distros.
This isn't me being narrow-minded because, as I said elsewhere, it's their job to convince me that I can trust them with my hardware and my sensitive data. And their site, in it's current state, doesn't do a good job of that. In it's current state, it feels like it's being managed by people who don't have a whole lot of experience in this field.
But as I also said elsewhere, I know better than most just how hard it is to get a landing page right for a project as complex as an OS. So I'm being critical from a place of empathy rather than dismissiveness.
> If you'd spend 5 seconds reading up on the technology, you could easily steelman a better argument.
I was asking you a question. There’s no need to be confrontational with me.
Where do you see them using "all-cause mortality" to mean "all causes except COVID" in the beginning? I skimmed over all uses of the term before the "Results" chapter, none of them seem to exclude COVID deaths?
If a person "trains" on other creatives' works, they can produce output at the rate of one person. This presents a natural ceiling for the potential impact on those creatives' works, both regarding the amount of competing works, and the number of creatives whose works are impacted (since one person can't "train" on the output of all creatives).
That's not the case with AI models. They can be infinitely replicated AND train on the output of all creatives. A comparable situation isn't one human learning from another human, it's millions of humans learning from every human. Only those humans don't even have to get paid, all their payment is funneled upwards.
It's not one artist vs. another artist, it's one artist against an army of infinitely replicable artists.
reply