Yes, except online exams. The online spyware they make you install for those is designed not to work on a VM or anything like that. I had to keep a barebones windows partition around just for that.

You’re welcome! I’ve had to do that exact process more than once, so I had a sneaking suspicion you weren’t quite up shit’s creek yet.

Live boot Linux, install testdisk in there, and try to see if it can find it. It’s probably still there.

And you think there’s not bias in those rules that’s notable, and that the edge cases I mentioned won’t be an issue, or what?

You seem to have sidestepped what I’ve said to rant about how OpenAI sucks when that was just meant to be an example of how even those best informed about AI in the world right now don’t really understand it.

Sure, who will it impersonate if you don’t? That’s where the bias comes in.

And yes, they do need a guide, because the way chatbots behave is not intuitive or clear, there’s lots of weird emergent behavior in them even experts don’t fully understand (see OpenAI’s 4o sycophancy articles today). Chatbots’ behavior looks obvious, and in many cases it is…until it isn’t. There’s lots of edge cases.

Something that annoys me about people who love to harp on about how bad Mozilla is because they’ve gone downhill (which they have): Who is better? Genuinely compare them to their competition. Google? Heck no. Brave? Nope. Microsoft? Absolutely not. Apple? No. People complain about how much Mozilla spends on advocacy, but then when they actually do the advocacy, they’re happy about it! They’re perpetually stuck between a rock and a hard place because they’re pulled in both directions and thus, Firefox suffers. But, are they actually a broken clock? Really?

I guess to be a little clearer: If you compare Mozilla to their past selves, they lose. If you compare Mozilla to anyone else in that space with the resources to develop a browser, they’re still the best of the bunch by a country mile.

Either windows’ or windows’s is correct, actually. The reason is because of exactly words like “Windows”, if you use the former, it sounds like it’s a possessive of more than one window, but it’s a possessive of a proper noun, Windows. The latter is more correct in this case because of that. (it’s also pronounced that way!)

Yup. All of that is true. It also protects you from yourself by preventing you from making changes outside of the home directory so you can’t hose your system accidentally. It’s intentional.

Check rocm’s supported cards, oh and after you install rocm, restart your computer - made that mistake when I was doing it and couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t working.

Your M.2 port can probably fit an M.2 to PCIe adapter and you can use a GPU with that - ollama supports AMD GPUs just fine nowadays (well, as well as it can, rocm is still very hit or miss)

I didn’t attribute it to malice, I said that the OP’s post is correct that Christoph’s stance is hardline and a complete showstopper for the R4L project. His reasoning is likely one of pragmatism, by the sounds of it, and it’s reasonable, but I simply don’t agree given Rust’s history as a language used in a codebase historically using another language (Firefox). The success stories there are already written, the language has developed with that in mind already. He’s not being ridiculous or malicious, he’s just being conservative and playing it safe, but that still gets in the way.

Yeah…until Christoph replied and confirmed what Hector was saying was true and not FUD. He didn’t mince words, he said he did not want Rust in Linux whatsoever, only for new codebases, not existing ones like Linux.

Well, they’d need to add a shebang, they’d need to set the executable bit, and if it works, it works, but if it doesn’t open a terminal (some DEs do, some don’t), you don’t even know if it worked, it’s not really that straightforward.

In the same way that not everyone cares about how their car works and wants to tinker with it and modify it, but they use it every day - there are people who feel that way about computers, and Linux being viable for those people is a good thing, and we don’t need to “dumb down” the whole ecosystem to do it, since Linux is all about options.

What you just said is like “I forgot that changing your tire/oil in 2024 is akin to surgery”. Yeah, it’s not that hard, but do you know how to do it? How many Linux users who drive a car do you know that could do it themselves correctly? Everything’s easy when you already have a breadth of knowledge on it.

Lots of states made flavored reusable vapes illegal, but flavored disposables are legal. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.

Oh, of course, it’s just their tools have gotten much better. You could have said what you just did about the internet too, and it’d also be correct, but it definitely had a big impact.

Fair, I should have said “for a bad actor”, of which I am not. I haven’t experience with the tools they’d use.

No, they’re saying it would be really easy now to create a fake image that would have in the past had that level of impact.

That’s not at all the argument I’m making. My argument is that English’s inconsistency is, at this point, the reason it is successful. By integrating everything into it, it has become a good enough medium of communication for almost everything. That would not have been possible unless the language eschewed consistency.

Really, a better argument against changing the spelling is the classic “standards” xkcd, where now you’re just making another dialect of English where they spell words differently again, and now it needs to be adopted, fracturing the language further. Honestly, though? It doesn’t matter. Fix the spelling if you want. English can take the fracturing. The changes might take, they might not, but I doubt it’ll make the language more consistent overall, for every fix you put in, you’ll have someone who disagrees and doesn’t put it in, making your dialect more consistent, but the language overall less so, but it doesn’t matter. English will continue to be inconsistent, and that’s okay, that’s why it works.

The fool’s errand is trying to make the language consistent, when it never has been, especially trying to do it via spelling. English isn’t consistent. It’s not supposed to be. It takes pieces from every other language and integrates them into English whether it makes sense to or not, leading to inconsistency. That inconsistency, I think, is by design. It makes the language more versatile than any other, a “good enough” medium of communication for everything, but usually not the best, which for communication, tends to be fine.