I skimmed it, and it went from something about ToS to moderators rule to something about jury nullification(?). The whole thing probably could have been done with some strategic bullet points.

Unless it has changed, the lemmy.world ToS is about as broad and obscure as it gets. I can sum it up though: Admins are gonna do admin things, moderators are gonna do mod things and users are subject to whatever rules get applied to them in the moment.

Ask! I am sure your nephew will be glad to give you a not-so-short summary of the entire Pokemon universe. (Most kids that have hobbies like that usually have every tiny detail memorized and are willing to show off their expertise.)

I have been seeing some positive vibes coming from .ml over the last day or so. Kinda cool, actually.

De-escalation is easy: Russia can get the fuck out of Ukraine. All of it.

Consoles made sense when they required specialized hardware. The $700 for a PS5 is probably better spent on a much better GPU for a PC, IMHO.

It’s cool if you like consoles! They still have a specific allure, so I get it.

As far as my proof on link-boy is that his history kinda proves that he doesn’t research shit. His go-to method seems to be find-link-vomit-link. There is no fucking way he would have time to dig into that stuff based on volume alone. Is that “proof”? No. It’s a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.

If he does “do his research” and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it’s someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are.

By definition, you are correct on some points, btw. Dissent is dissent. However, dissent with bad information is just poor form. Endlessly shitposting like OP does is hardly quality dissent: OP just pushes narratives with cartoons and it reads like a fucking state media source. You can find the same style of shit all over right-wing media sources as well: Repeat the same basic points ad-nauseum.

As far as link-boy is concerned, I suppose he can dissent all over the place as much as he wants as well. It’s doesn’t change his history of link-flooding.

Also, “despite increasingly popular opinion” is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what? Your own social bubble? Really?

How the fuck you wrapped your last sentence in is beyond me, but anywho…

Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim. You know, like quoting every single line vomited out by every Russian state media source. (OP)

Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view. I could find a hundred more that align with my views, as an example. (re: link-boy in this thread.)

We all should know that Russia invading Ukraine “because Nazis” is complete bullshit. If you didn’t notice Russian media and government officials repeating that justification is just that: repeating things enough so people begin to believe it. (That is easy with state controlled media, btw.)

What we have is a failed case of seeing the forest through the trees and what Russian Putin’s goals have obviously been for years now: Rebuilding the USSR. (Nevermind that Crimea was not ethnic Russian until the local population just disappeared, somehow.)

Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action. A person could actually read all of the source articles they post, compare figures and assemble something that might be worth something in an argument. This takes a fuck ton of work, actually. All sources need to be considered and not just select articles that are vomited out in these kinds of posts.

What link-boy is doing is just flooding threads with data, regardless of it is correct or not. It’s not proving any points and likely just posted to flash out headlines, which people notoriously take at face value.

Then we need to loop back to the “reputable sources” bit. Nearly anyone can submit articles to these places with little review because “content”. To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this. If he is, it’s still shitty referencing.

Above all else, this conflict has proven that Russia is a paper tiger, mainly by showing their wonder-weapons are crap. This is not actually about the tech itself: It’s shown how Russian government has overstated just about everything about their capabilities. Not only did the world start to believe their own propaganda, Russians drank their own cool aid and thought they could just roll Ukraine in a couple of days, with or without western interference.

We don’t need shit-memes or walls of old links to show how Russia has manipulated the narrative over the last few years. All we need to do is watch how poorly they are performing on the battlefield against a country a tenth their size. We can watch Russian media and how they continue to posture and threaten with nukes. (That is a stupid play, and they know it.)

What’s even funnier, is that Lukashenko actually dumped out a couple weeks ago that Ukraine was already “denazified”. Oops. If that is actually “true”, why hasn’t this “special military operation” been called off? Why is Russia at a full wartime economy now for what is likely illegal to call a “war”?

Fucking grow up, is my point. You want to get all script-flippy about “sPeAkiG diSsEnT” when the people “dissenting” don’t know what the actual fuck they are posting with.

Mor links plz.

Edit: Geez. You really do like to find any link on the internets that justifies anything you want to believe, don’t ya?

It reminds me of the the Russian justification for invading Ukraine. I found the pamphlet, actually.

It wouldn’t be ml without a copy-pasta wall of links.

The trick is to bog other users down who actually source and back-reference all those articles so that it will freeze up a comment thread.

OP is weird. He is just vomiting out old propaganda that has been debunked a hundred times over.

Also, someone doesn’t know the history of Azov or the even the Vagner group.

When I see my Dr. or when I talk to other engineers?

Any in many ways, that is the way engineers should speak to other engineers when analyzing a problem.

If two or more people can actually share a common goal of finding the best solution, everyone involved should be making sure that no time is wasted chasing poor solutions. This not only takes the ability to be direct to someone else, but it also requires that you can parse what others are telling you.

If someone makes something personal or takes something personal, they need a break. Go take a short walk or something. (Linus is a different sort of creature though. I get it.)

TBH, this is part of the reason I chose my doctor (GP). She is extremely direct when problem solving and has no problems theory-crafting out loud. Sure, we are social to a degree, but we share many of the same professional mannerisms. (We had a short discussion on that topic the other day, actually. I just made her job easier because I give zero fucks about being judged for any of my personal health issues.)

You shouldn’t be scared of something that doesn’t exist.

(thinks out lound…)

If you could force different speeds and different voltages, you can make some guesses as to what the cable might support.

USB packets use CRC checks, so a bad checksum may indicate a speed or physical problem. (Besides stating the obvious, my point is that doing strict checks for each USB mode gives CRC more value.)

I just looked over the source code for libusb (like I knew what I was looking for, or something) and it seems that some of the driver(?) components hook really deep into the kernel. There might be a way to test specific parts of any type of handshake (for dataflow or voltage negotiation) to isolate specific wires that are bad by the process of elimination.

I think my point is that a top-down approach is likely possible, but it’s probabilistic.

Cable testers can bypass all of the standard driver and USB negotiation bullshit before anything else. I would imagine building a device to manually control when and how the connections are made is much easier than fighting for low level device control on systems like Windows, macOS and Android.

I am curious as to why they would offload any AI tasks to another chip? I just did a super quick search for upscaling models on GitHub (https://github.com/marcan/cl-waifu2x/tree/master/models) and they are tiny as far as AI models go.

Its the rendering bit that takes all the complex maths, and if that is reduced, that would leave plenty of room for running a baby AI. Granted, the method I linked to was only doing 29k pixels per second, but they said they weren’t GPU optimized. (FSR4 is going to be fully GPU optimized, I am sure of it.)

If the rendered image is only 85% of a 4k image, that’s ~1.2 million pixels that need to be computed and it still seems plausible to keep everything on the GPU.

With all of that blurted out, is FSR4 AI going to be offloaded to something else? It seems like there would be a significant technical challenges in creating another data bus that would also have to sync with memory and the GPU for offloading AI compute at speeds that didn’t risk create additional lag. (I am just hypothesizing, btw.)

It seems like it would be extremely fast to me. Take a 50x50 block of pixels and expand those across a 100x100 pixel grid leaving blank pixels were you have missing data. If a blank pixel is surrounded by blue pixels, the probability of the missing pixel being blue is fairly high, I would assume.

That is a problem that is perfect for AI, actually. There is an actual algorithm that can be used for upscaling, but at its core, its likely boiled down to a single function and AI’s are excellent for replicating the output of basic functions. It’s not a perfect result, but it’s tolerable.

If this example is correct or not for FSR, I have no clue. However, having AI shit out data based on a probability is mostly what they do.

No Starfield? Oh noes!