We are already seeing this with sites that pump as many prompts through SD and spam the internet with junk images. Future systems will at least have to have quality discriminators when training on these images.
Items contain overviews and details which are encrypted separately
by the vault key. We encrypt these separate so that we can quickly decrypt the information needed to list, sort, and find items without having
to first decrypt everything in the vault.
Item overviews include the item fields needed to list items and to quickly match items to websites, such as Title, URLs, password strength indicator, and tags.
Additionally, 1Password makes the extra effort to never even send the URLs of your accounts to their servers. Even with their Watchtower service, which notifies you of breached accounts and websites that support 2-factor authentication, your passwords and website URLs are never sent to 1Password servers.
I had been a very happy customer for years before they started moving to that policy. It's what finally made me set up a vaultwarden instance and migrate all my stuff over.
I didn't like the move to a subscription model, but I'd have sucked that up if I could've continued to bring my own sync.
For those of us that have been using it for long enough, we can still use the "classic" version stuck at v7, but it means being able to self host. no monthly SaaS fees.
From what I can tell, v7 is Intel-only. That means when Apple sunsets Rosetta 2, it’s not going to work anymore. I’ll need to switch to something else before then, but hate Electron, and all the other options seem to use it (and now 1Password does, too).
That's a good catch. I'm still on a MacTel MBP, so this is not something I had ever considered. That's going to be just one more reason I'll keep the current laptop powered up on a shelf in the closet if/when I upgrade to a newer computer.
I _love_ Copilot but the only reason I use it is because I qualify under their open source developers program, I just can't justify paying $10/month for it.
It saves a bit of time, but doesn't seem to make a difference on time to market of features, products, improvements or bug fixes.
In my experience, it's a quality of life improvement, but the things that dictate actual time to market is bottlenecked by things that aren't solved by copilot, such as overall design, decision making, requirements gathering, code structure/architecture, solution ideation, user acceptance, infrastructure setup, etc.
I think if it eventually could help with those other tasks, you'd see time to market gains, and that would start to make it really valuable.
I'm very tempted to get Affinity 2 for that price but lately I've found that most Mac apps tend to release major versions weirdly often and in that case there's not a lot of difference between having yearly subscription and paying to update once a year.
The difference would be the ability to stop paying at any point and keep the software you bought. I thought that was the whole point of buying software outright as opposed to subscriptions. Not paying developers less for ongoing development.
I remember being completely mystified the first time I heard "arreglo" at my first job.
I have a theory that the frequency of the use of those translations (arreglo, aplicativo) in a workplace is directly proportional to the amount of bureaucracy in it.
I signed up.for early access but I'm not too hopeful. There's some blockchain-esque use of words(Making me think it will rely on Ethereum or something) and a lot of obsfuscation, it's impossible to get any clue of how it works without signing up.
Last time I checked, Loqseq didn't support free-form text / Markdown as it's an outliner (only). Now I recently heard[0] that there's a "temporary free-form text mode" now(?) – I have yet to check it out but going by what people have been saying on the internet until a few days ago[1,2,3] this doesn't seem to be solving the problem or otherwise people would have stopped complaining.
Anytype is in closed alpha with 8,000 currently testing it. You can try it yourself using the invite code - hn. Please remember it’s an early alfa which doesn’t have a proper onboarding.
There's a very delicate balance when dealing with "Resist the urge to change things," from both sides. As an old-timer, I sometimes find it annoying when new co-workers try to change stuff because they are not used to our stuff. But, on the other hand, it's incredibly easy to get calcified in our ways if people wait too long after entering to suggest changes since that "fresh" perspective is gone.
IMO you should gain trust of your new colleagues before you start changing things. At the very LEAST, understand the reasoning and circumstances that resulted in the status quo. Many times I see people come with an attitude towards status quo and get distracted by trying to change things too soon and too quickly that you see them stumble and have a poor onboarding experience.
Understand the system and the organization for a while, ship features and fix bugs (or whatever else) with the current setup, then everyone else will trust your judgement when you make suggestions because you have skin in the game now.
This is especially important since a lot of SWE can talk through what a solid system should look like etc but have no idea how to put that in practice with the constraints of real life. The above is a good "rite of passage" to weed out those who only do the talking.
I wonder if we'll end up in a future where gaming GPUs will be restricted from running ML algorithms, to prevent private individuals from running advanced deepfakes/DALLE-10 or whatever.
This is terrifying. If only a certain class of people has access to this technology (i.e. governments and huge tech companies), the temptation to use that technology to control the class of people who don't will be too much.
Good on them. As a researcher it is so disheartening when GPUs get hoovered up by people participating in proof of waste pyramid schemes.
Likewise, if google decides it wants to preserve its service for students and researchers, then I hope that people chewing up resources for malicious/questionable use-cases are booted off.
GPU manufacturers have been talking about splitting the GPU market with products that are locked into only serving specific use cases like PC gaming, machine learning and cryptocurrency mining.
That's to say manufacturers want to prevent someone who buys a gaming GPU from using it to mine crypto or for ML, and they don't want someone who buys a ML GPU to use it for mining, and so on.
Any good (fiction or non-fiction) book on this? By "this" I mean governments trying to control overtly or secretly the use of computing resources. Bonus points if it is not Charlie Stross (I can't stand his writings).
More likely the high end ML accelerators become so specialized as to diverge from GPUs. Carry on trying to use your gaming GPU for ML, with the knowledge that professionals are using hardware 100x as powerful.
