The idea that a group of people would spend so much of their time trying to get linux to work on Apple hardware through reverse engineering always seemed absolutely crazy to me. I would never consider buying Apple hardware precisely because it doesn't support linux and the work they put in achieves nothing because the risk will always remain that they will lock the hardware further. Nevermind the fact that they will likely never fully reverse engineer all the components.
It just seems like a completely pointless endeavor... perhaps some people buy into it? why would anyone buy overpriced hardware with partial support that may one day be gone? the enhanced battery life doesn't really hold much appeal to me, and the arm architecture if anything is just another signal to stay away.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they wanted the achievement on their resume, and in that given recent developments they succeeded?
You overlooked the UTM app on the App Store (and open source available too), which wraps Apple Silicon virtualization excellently, or you can use Qemu (which I don't).
I used to use Asahi, but the sleep modes power drain was tedious.
With UTM, I install a latest Fedora ISO (declaring it a "Linux", which exposes the option to skip QEMU and use native Apple Silicon virtualization.
It's fantastic. I mention this only because it's been super useful, way better than Asahi, with minimal effort.
The hardware isn’t overpriced, it’s best in class. It’s just that that class isn’t what you’re looking for, and as a Linux user it’s not for you, which is valid! But the hardware for what it is is one of the absolute best price to performance ratios on the market right now and I’m tired of people pretending it isn’t. You can get a brand new m4 MacBook Air for under $800 right now, and that’s simply one of the best deals around. For an M2 for asahi Linux? Second hand the prices are even better.
A sufficiently seeded torrent is a high latency static CDN.
You just need a client that can make use of it.
I'm not sure if anyone will be interested in making one however, you can already get a patched Spotify APK from the usual mobile piracy spaces that's good enough.
I'm not ideologically opposed to AI. The problem will get worse because while the quality of the music will improve, it will still be bad and there will also be a lot more of it.
We aren't really short on music. Diluting the good stuff with 100x more mediocre filler is not a good thing.
If AI generated music ever actually becomes good then that's another story but that is quite a way off.
when you combine a residential proxy with a tool like curl-impersonate (there are libraries in Go for this type of fingerprint spoofing now) they dont even show up as scrapers anymore, just users. especially when they adjust timings to mimic humans.
clouflare only blocks the most dumb of bots, there are still a lot of them.
this is why cloudflare will issue javascript challenges to you even when you are using google chrome with a VPN, they are desperate to appear to be doing something. and every VPN is used to crawl as well. a slightly more sophisticated bot passes the cloudflare javascript challenge as well, there really is nothing they can do to win here.
i know some teams that got annoyed with residential proxies (they are usually sold as socks5 but can be buggy and low bandwidth) so they invested into defeating the cloudflare javascript challenge and now crawl using 1000's of VPN endpoints at over 100 Gbit/s.
Is "residential proxy" another name for an hacked/owned computer that the bots have access to? Or are there legitimate services that sell access to residential IPs?
People legitimately sell egress. It's "free" money. But of course, if you have a botnet, you can sell that through the same channels, no one is looking too closely.
The answer to that is simple: They hate AI and the environment angle is just an excuse, much like their concern over AI art. Human psychology is such that many of these people actually believe the excuse too.
It helps when you put yourself in the shoes of people like that and ask yourself, if I find out tomorrow that the evidence that AI is actually good for the environment is stronger, will I believe it? Will it even matter for my opposition to AI? The answer is no.
You don't know that. I don't know about you (and whatever you wrote possibly tells more about yourself than anyone else), but I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).
And the environment is far from being the only concern.
You are attacking a straw man. For you, being against GenAI, simply because it happens to be against your beliefs, is necessarily irrational. Please don't do this.
> I prefer my positions strong and based on reality, not based on lies (to myself included).
Then you would be the exception, not the rule.
And if you find yourself attached to any ideology, then you are also wrong about yourself. Subscribing to any ideology is by definition lying to yourself.
Being able to place yourself into the shoes of others is something evolution spent 1000s of generations hardwiring into us, I'm very confident in my reading of the situation.
> Having beliefs, principles or values is not lying to oneself.
The lie is that you adopted "beliefs, principles or values" which cannot ever serve your interests, you have subsumed yourself into something that cannot ever reciprocate. Ideology by definition even alters your perceived interests, a more potent subversion cannot be had (up to now, with potential involuntary neural interfaces on the horizon).
> Citation needed
I will not be providing one, but that you believe one is required is telling. There is no further point to this discussion.
The real question is if AI replaces labor, what will keep democracy in place?
People who advocate for things like UBI don't seem to realize that when voters don't have a share in the productivity of their nation, they become 100% a liability. The reason democracy persists is that the powers that be aren't incentivized to destroy democracy as it would harm them too. In 10 years that will no longer be the case. Arguably, you can already see this today as the future expectations affect the present.
The US could just adopt a law which automatically seizes assets from the EU to cover any such fines. Demonstrate where true power lies.
Define this type of action as "bureaucratic piracy". Any rule which preferentially targets US interests over domestic either in its creation or its enforcement. Apply some of that "disparate outcomes" logic.
This is almost certainly just for show (as in, they would have no reliance on it and not expect it to ever be triggered).
They will have agents both known and unknown operating at those companies. A company cannot as a policy set out to violate the law (if it's smart). It would be trivial for individuals to have covert channels set up.
There has never been a point where tipping point public demand for regulation did not lead to regulation (if it was for example unconstitutional to regulate). Which makes the assertion that regulation is the solution unprovable.
If the FDA never got established, would firms emerge that put their seals of approval on medicine and become trusted? We will never know. It's pointless to point out what happened before the FDA and after because these are not random samples, the FDA didn't get randomly created. The demand for the FDA if denied would have transformed into the demand for something else.
We will also never know the progress in medicine we lost due to the red tape. There would of certainly been scandals and deaths, but if we got a cancer cure as a result would it not have been worth it?
I suspect that if regulation was not a feature of government we would of solved it in other ways, such as the ability to pierce the corporate veil both civilly and criminally for gross negligence etc. And third parties whose only product is trust - these parties would have infinitely more incentive to preserve that trust than governments.
You say regulation solving problems is unprovable when we have many examples of it doing so, then you claim that without regulation, we would solve things other ways, without any examples of that ever happening, let alone on a large scale. To “pierce the corporate veil both civilly and criminally” is legislation, as laws determine what is criminal. We also had exactly that in the US, where corporations lobbied for reduced regulation, saying that lawsuits would keep them honest through monetary losses. They then immediately went about lobbying to reduce lawsuit liability, cap payouts, and launched a vast PR campaign to paint lawsuits as money grabs by unscrupulous people looking for a payout.
And why wouldn’t a company “whose only product is trust” not be incentivized to sell that trust to the highest bidder? Companies sell out all the time and continue to do good business for a decade or more on customer trust they built up or came with the brand name they bought.
The saying “regulations are written in blood” comes to mind. So where are all the examples of things getting fixed through other means when regulation isn’t written to fix something?
It just seems like a completely pointless endeavor... perhaps some people buy into it? why would anyone buy overpriced hardware with partial support that may one day be gone? the enhanced battery life doesn't really hold much appeal to me, and the arm architecture if anything is just another signal to stay away.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they wanted the achievement on their resume, and in that given recent developments they succeeded?
reply