Australian Cyber Security professional

  • 7 Posts
  • 166 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle







  • Apologies, I misread your comment as saying you had to use the terminal to use Linux (I was drunk ngl). I still believe Linux is easier to use than Windows with the caveat that the easiest system to use will always be the one you have the most experience with. I switched from MacOS/Windows to Fedora on my personal machine a few months ago and it’s been smooth sailing for me, though I have always used Linux at least somewhat (I work in cyber security), so that has probably helped.

    Dismissing Linux as a tool for a different job (ie not personal/business computing) is an odd position to take for someone with your experience.



  • That version doesn’t exist is what I’m saying. The manufacturers have to put in significant work to get it to that point. And along the way they have to choose to make it similar to pixel/what people expect “stock” android to look like, instead of putting their own flair on it. My point is that it takes just as much work to make an android skin that feels “stock” as to make one that doesn’t. You can’t dismiss their version of Android as being “stock” because that doesn’t exist.






  • Nobody can because of Steam’s monopoly. You can try to create your own store but you won’t have nearly the same selection of games. Monopolies are bad. Even when they’re companies you like. To be clear, I’m not saying Steam should be broken up, I’m not saying they should lose games to other stores. I’m saying they’re a monopoly, and that is bad because it enables Steam to stagnate or even get worse.

    It’s also pretty inarguable imo that Steam has been getting worse. Steam sales used to be events. You’d get multiple huge discounts on AAA games. Now you’re lucky to get 40% off a 6 year old game. And don’t get me started on the UI, which, while fine, hasn’t changed meaningfully in like a decade. There simply is no incentive for Steam to be better. So they’re not. We should consider ourselves lucky that they’re still as good as they are, because they won’t be forever.




  • I feel like the amount of training data required for these AIs serves as a pretty compelling argument as to why AI is clearly nowhere near human intelligence. It shouldn’t take thousands of human lifetimes of data to train an AI if it’s truly near human-level intelligence. In fact, I think it’s an argument for them not being intelligent whatsoever. With that much training data, everything that could be asked of them should be in the training data. And yet they still fail at any task not in their data.

    Put simply; a human needs less than 1 lifetime of training data to be more intelligent than AI. If it hasn’t already solved it, I don’t think throwing more training data/compute at the problem will solve this.