I’m curious how could it be unclear that this post is about the TTS part? Espeak is provided as an example.

On the other hand, Vaultwarden can only be updated online. While I do use it, I consider it a major downside, along with the inability to sync attachments.

I mean if your OS was “smart” as not to send IO to devices that indicate critical failure (e.g. by marking them read-only in the array?), and then thinks all devices have failed critically, wouldn’t this happen in that kind of system as well…

The problem isn’t the tool, it’s the user: they don’t know if they’re getting good code or not, therefore they cannot make the prompt to improve it.

In my view the problems occur when using AI to do something you don’t already know how to do.

They don’t need to use semantic versioning. I doubt coreutils itself uses it, though I admit I haven’t checked. Actually I think semantic versioning is less popular in practice than it looks like.

For a set of tools to that completely replaces another one, announcing a 1.0 version would be a message that the developers think the project has actually reached its initial goals. “0.2” does not.

Rust is great, but might it be a bit premature to replace the venerable coreutils with a project boasting version number 0.2, which I imagine reflects its author’s view on its maturity?

When user enters a prompt, the backend may retrieve a handful a pages to serve that prompt. It won’t retrieve all the pages of a site. Hardly different from a user using a search engine and clicking 5 topmost links into tabs. If that is not a DoS attack, then an agent doing the same isn’t a DDoS attack.

Constructing the training material in the first place is a different matter, but if you’re asking about fresh events or new APIs, the training data just doesn’t cut it. The training, and subsequenctly the material retrieval, has been done a long time ago.

This is not about training data, though.

Perplexity argues that Cloudflare is mischaracterizing AI Assistants as web crawlers, saying that they should not be subject to the same restrictions since they are user-initiated assistants.

Personally I think that claim is a decent one: user-initiated request should not be subject to robot limitations, and are not the source of DDOS attack to web sites.

I think the solution is quite clear, though: either make use of the user identity to walz through the blocks, or even make use of the user browser to do it. Once a captcha appears, let the user solve it.

Though technically making all this happen flawlessly is quite a big task.

You configure vlans per physical port, so in a properly implemented system your attack won’t be possible. When the packet comes to the switch the vlan tag is added to it according to the configuration for the port it was received from.

Or are you talking about mac-vlans?

Depends on you hw. That seems rather poor implementation… I believe my TP switch might handle that, because it rejects traffic to its management interface from mac X from vlan 20 because it sees the same mac in vlan 10… (only vlan 20 is allowed for management)

Well, if these devices required any sort of authentication (e.g. pairing) to free access to their ram and flash, we wouldn’t be having this particular story…

It’s nice that this exists, but even for this I’d prefer to use an open source tool.

And it of course helps with migration only if the old HS is still online…

I think most practically this migration function would be built inside some Matrix client (one that would support more than one server to start with), but I suppose a standalone tool would be a decent solution as well.

Wish the homeserver portability would be worked on more. The ability to change homeserver would really allow people to more easily move on from matrix.org.

Myself included ;).

Optimally it would even allow the switch “after the fact”, so after your original homeserver is down, assuming your client has a local copy of the server-side secret storage. It would need to be based on some cryptographic identity then, I suppose.

Does he already not have the opportunity, robot or not?

Yeah, with mpv you can even hold the jump 10/60 sec forward/backward button pressed and the frames just fly in the screen. Vlc seeking is really slow in comparison.

I’m also in a one-party consent country, and I’ve found it sometimes useful to get back to some calls just to find out some details, such as agreed date/time or some detail of a discussion I had with my mother. I would enjoy an automatic text translation to be stored alongside them.

I miss the feature now that I have Pixel 8.

I used syncthing to sync them to PC. Size-wise I have so few phone calls (work meetings excluded, which they are as they are over Slack/Teams) that all of them will fit most any modern phone easily.

They presumably assume they’d be selling so little that it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.

They’ll probably wait out this situation for a while and see what the competition does…

If you just do it on your own computer, the packet will be already dropped by your own gateway. You can fake whichever address in your local subnet, but those are very likely remapped anyway in your gw to the one given by your ISP.

If you would have access to the switch port used by your ISP in the Internet exchange point (IX), you would have more liberties in choosing the IP.

That’s a bit surprising, given DDG uses Bing, Bing is Microsoft and Microsoft owns Github.

Did you try the same search with Bing, or have an example to share?

Did you give it to it?

It can be a pretty nice feature for using map-based apps in the browser.

I haven’t used such websites for a while and I don’t see Firefox in the recent users of the location API, even though I use Firefox Android all the time. (Info available in Android under Settings/Location.)