No, that’s ridiculous.

This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: […] © by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity;

As is stated, the call is processed locally in the user’s device. If that holds true, there is no recording and no third party processing going on. Your point does not make sense.

That’s a real world issue. AIs training on each other’s output and devolving because of it. There will be a point when vendors infringing on user content and training their AIs with it will leave them worse off.

It’s easy to train a model to do exactly what you want and have the seeming “personality” that you want. It’s just incredibly expensive. You need to vet and filter everything that you use to train the model. That’s a lot of person hours, days, years. The only reason the models act the way they do is because of the data that went in to train them. If you try and fit the model after the fact, it will always be imperfect and more or less easy to break out of those restrictions.

Also, revolt self hosting is broken. The web call functionality (WebRTC) is being rewritten but that effort is stale and out of the box it simply does not work. There is no real documentation about this either. It just won’t work and you need to invest a lot of effort to figure out why. The moment self hosting properly works, I’ll give it another shot. Not being able to connect without a fat client is a show stopper for me. There’s no way I can get enough traction for my groups if the barrier to switch is higher than a sheet of paper.

When self hosting all the shortcomings you mentioned are perfectly acceptable for me.

If you use much of the software that is included in the support package, then the price seems reasonable. No way you could get the same price if you went to each provider individually. If all you use is bare bones openshift, then you’re right.

Don’t shoot the messenger. The regulations are pretty draconic. I have to ensure the training for that every year.

Seemingly one of the contributors has visited a disputed region and logged into GitHub from there. By law (export controls) Microsoft must not provide service to that place. So some automatism flagged the account and also the organic maps repo. So far so normal. But either Microsoft dragged it’s feet in communicating and resolving the issue or the organic maps team was not doing their part in the process. Doesn’t matter, the outcome is still worth it.

The ship is painted red and a few containers are bolted to it, rather than use provided.

That’s what containers are for. Fucking up the container won’t fuck up the host. That was the best decision in self hosting I’ve done. Even that one virtual machine feels weird and uncomfortably legacy now but it needs to interact with hardware in a certain way that just won’t fully work with docker.

Python doesn’t have to. Windows supports both out of the box. Has been for many, many years

No, I said they hadn’t demonstrated it. But 95% is close enough, I stand corrected.

In that case I stand corrected on the whole orbit bit. Thanks for taking the time.

I didn’t say “a little” money. It may be important or critical for the business but from a technical perspective, demonstrating how it can safely bring loads up and down decides whether the whole concept is actually feasible. That’s when people will start to get excited.

As far as I understood it, SpaceX uses the word “orbit” liberally. If it reaches the hight where an orbit would be possible, that’s “being in orbit” for them. In an actual orbit, the rocket would not fall back down again in an hour or so without active breaking. If my understanding is incorrect, I’m happy to be corrected. And even of that was achieved soon, it’s still all without demonstrating that the starship could actually carry a load and return it safely. Not even an inexpensive dummy load. All SpaceX is showing in their live feeds are empty cargo holds that fill up with hot gases and fumes during reentry.

I think the average person gets it right. It’s a nice feat to catch the booster and it will save money. But that’s a side quest. The main quest of getting an actual load to orbit and beyond is still pretty far away. At least compared with the official time line where they wanted to achieve much more than that three years ago.

Postgres handles NoSQL better than many dedicated NoSQL database management systems. I kept telling another team to at least evaluate it for that purpose - but they knew better and now they are stuck with managing the MongoDB stack because they are the only ones that use it. Postgres is able to do everything they use out of the box. It just doesn’t sound as fancy and hip.

Also, Kanban was invented in the 40s as a process for automotive production lines. That’s why it aligns so well with maintenance and operations projects in IT. It’s ridiculous how more and more people claim it comes from software development and would not fit hardware projects, when that’s the core use case of the methodology.

I specifically picked the statistic that claimed to have included the full cost of installing something new. Most other statistics only include prolonging the life of existing plants, thus ignoring the installation costs completely. You can just quote the paragraphs that prove your point the same way I have and then we can discuss further. Maybe I made a mistake, who knows.

Extremely cheap per kilowatt? Every statistic out there that I’ve seen and that includes government funding, as well as construction and deconstruction costs, paints a different picture. Nuclear is only competitive with coal or the relatively underdeveloped solar thermal.

In 2017 the US EIA published figures for the average levelized costs per unit of output (LCOE) for generating technologies to be brought online in 2022, as modelled for its Annual Energy Outlook. These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 ¢/kWh; natural gas, 5.7-10.9 ¢/kWh (depending on technology); and coal with 90% carbon sequestration, 12.3 ¢/kWh (rising to 14 ¢/kWh at 30%). Among the non-dispatchable technologies, LCOE estimates vary widely: wind onshore, 5.2 ¢/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 ¢/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 ¢/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 ¢/kWh.

Emphasis mine, source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power