Is use of Alexa+ actually mandatory for an Echo moving forward? Can users choose to stay on their current semi-local system without AI like you can now?
> How is trusting the manufacturer to not transfer that information any more reasonable than trusting Amazon to not spy on me when they say they don't?
Probably because phone manufacturers have historically not done things as bad as Amazon has privacy-wise.
> Since SimpleX requires that users place some trust in the SimpleX servers
Do you know what they mean by this? I could not understand from the explanation given. My understanding is that the message contents are still not known in any case, so I'm curious what it is they are worried about.
Thiel himself has stayed out of the media, but a lot of what's happening is directly related to him. He's a big part of the reason we have JD Vance.
I recently came across this article from July 2024. I'm not sure what to think of it - it feels a bit conspiracy-ish, but it explains a lot of what's happening now.
They hire their own people in the top jobs, the ones that require Congressional approval. But they generally leave the existing civil service in place.
That balances the administration's priorities with the experience of people who have spent a lifetime in the job. It is not the case that each administration roots out vast numbers of political opponents from the departments.
Biden hired people with ties to people in his circle. Trump does the same. That is not, in and of itself, nefarious—in private companies it's widely understood that hiring through your network is the most reliable way to hire.
There may be other reasons why these particular cases are nefarious, but simply pointing out "ties to" does not show that by itself.
I think that's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, just like with human-produced content someone alleges as infringing.
Humans of course create things by drawing from past influences, and I would argue so does AI.
In fact, I would say that nothing and nobody starts out original. We need copying to build a foundation of knowledge and understanding. Everything is a copy of something else, the only difference is how much is actually copied, and how obvious it is. Copying is how we learn. We can't introduce anything new until we're fluent in the language of our domain, and we do that through emulation.
So to me the legal argument of AI vs copyright, comes down to how similar a particular result is from the original, and that's a subjective call that a judge or jury would have to make.
I had sirius xm with a new car, I subbed for a year or two additional then cancelled as a cost savings when I got the axe at work. I still every few months or so maybe get my radio switched back to xm for an ad for another xm subscription.
As I've been resigned to the decline of civilization I just sort of noted that I had a few seconds worth of work added to my life in turning it off to the profit of someone else so it really isn't that bad I guess, especially as it only happens when starting the car which is the best case if it has to be that way.
This particular ad, at every stoplight well thats quite a bit worse in my opinion. I feel lucky now that its just sirius xm ads for me.
Did the spark trick work? 110v does wonders for rendering ... oh, just unplug it.
I had a friend who did not like his seat belt warning beeper. It took over 4 hours to get the dashboard entirely apart, drill a hole in the beeper, and then put the thing back together. 9 months later, the engine ceased... Hmmmm... XM Radio used to give away devices for free... no free lunch.
it's not about forcing yourself to be a good salesman, but rather about showcasing your skills, expertise, and personality in a genuine and authentic way
Everyone in the world, including a million experienced programmers, are already showcasing their skills in a "genuine and authentic" way. Why are you better than anyone else for the job?
I assume there is some miscommunication happening in this thread but of course some people are more competent than others in a given field/role and if you disagree I'm not sure what to say.
I took "Why are you better than anyone else" to mean better than everyone else. Because the only other way I know to interpret it (as "why are you better than some other person you know nothing about and have no reference to compare to") didn't make sense to me. But maybe that's my own fault.
Seriously? Have you seen the absolute crap that some people produce? You really don't think "it's necessary (or possible) to be better than anyone else"?
Both clients send a packet to a server, server sends the remote IP to both parties, both parties try to send traffic to either’s remote IP. Unless their nat firewall is evil, this should work.
That doesn't work with "symmetric" NAT, which was specified by the person you are responding to: in that case, you can't rely on even a third party to figure out the port. To the extent to which this NAT paradigm is chosen for its efficient usage of ports, this is fixable using UPnP/NAT-PMP/PCP, but 1) I've (sadly) never seen a WebRTC implementation which takes advantage of these protocols, and 2) usually this isn't chosen for it's port efficiency: it is chosen because the NAT provider is incompetent (or even actively "evil", lol), and so they are almost certainly also not going to support a port mapping mechanism.
Regardless, I'll claim that the real disagreement is more over how common symmetric NAT is: I claim it is very rare, and that the vast majority of NAT isn't symmetric... however, in another thread, the user you are responding to claims that "in [their] country" they've never seen WebRTC work at all. I'd wager that's a pretty local issue, with what probably amounts to a local oligopoly built with similar limitations, but if you live in that world it must be brutal. However, that's not WebRTC's problem: we should implement port mapping in clients and ISPs should, to put it as kindly as feels fair, "fix their shit".
> A symmetric NAT is one where all requests from the same internal IP address and port, to a specific destination IP address and port, are mapped to the same external IP address and port.
My understanding is that it's not "required", but most of the CGNAT routers I've encountered do symmetric NAT, and they force-randomize the source port for each new connection, then keep it fixed for one external ip:port for some "session" duration, defeating traditional hole-punching.
When I've tried to build WebRTC P2P stuff I've experienced this making direct P2P WebRTC connections between CGNAT users nearly impossible, always requiring at least one node with a re-usable hole-punched public udp port or a relay server.
Such CGNAT should also be more likely to support PCP than a normal NAT. It does suck that, AFAIK, no browser has integrated support for this into their WebRTC stacks :/.
reply