𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Indian

True, it’s not a perfect measure. But surely an instance with fewer users also tends to have fewer active communities, no?

It might be better than nothing at least.

I suppose we should normalize lemmy instances closing new registrations, to keep the user count at a manageable level for the admins.

Our best current alternative option that’s already there is sadly gas. It’s fast, cheap and emissions are not the worst of the bunch. Still bad though.

As far as battery storage is concerned, battery prices have dropped 97% in the last three decades (and it’s still dropping quite quickly). See https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline for a pretty good overview. And that’s not taking into account other forms of energy storage like water-based storage or new batteries based on sodium.

The batteries we have now are already cheap enough to purchase for individual customers, and including solar panels means it’s already possible to effectively take houses off the grid. In 10 years those prices will be 50-25% of their current price in pessimistic scenarios. Solar is dropping in price at similar rates.

Nuclear doesn’t make sense for that purpose because it’d have to quickly be able to spin up and down. Most reactor designs aren’t really able to do it quickly in normal operations, and those that can can’t do so in a way that makes any economic sense. They’re financially outcompeted by their alternatives.

Storage is the solution, which we can build today in a viable way and is rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper.

The financial case for nuclear today is shoddy at best. It’s why no company wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole unless heavy government subsidies are involved. The case for nuclear in ten years is, given the continuous advancements in renewable energy costs and battery storage tech, almost certainly dead.

I remember a project where someone booted Linux off of Google Drive. Cursed on many levels.

You’d be surprised…

1. Perhaps true, the value of LLM prompting instructions are probably limited.

2. I disagree with the premise that requiring instructions on how to prompt Copilot for something eliminates the reason for Copilot to exist. Copilot is a tool and just like any other tool it may require some instructions for someone who is new to it. You and I might find it intuitive, but Joe Shmo might not.

But that’s not what the section does, it highlights how to use what is being documented with Copilot, in case you’re not sure how to prompt it correctly.

Copilot isn’t perfect. And sometimes you don’t know that you can make Copilot do something if you don’t know it exists.

That’s assuming you read it that way. I don’t really read that section as “Hey go use Copilot for this”. Rather as “If you’re using Copilot, here’s how to do it with that”.

I mean, that’s entirely assuming that Microsoft also accepts that the use of Copilot requires no documentation. And given that Microsoft does have decades of experience dealing with users doing all kinds of dumb shit, they might not necessarily agree.

Yeah I think that’s why it’s valuable to talk about these additions. Is mentioning LLM prompts even of any value?

But that is a separate (and imo much stronger) argument than the whole “mentioning Copilot is MS shilling for their own products”-argument.

Also it’s not a single line - when looking at the source file - and a complete section instead.

True, I misjudged the original screenshot at the top of the thread. Still, it is all the way at the bottom of the page.

1. It’s inside the dotnet Docs. dotnet has nothing to do with an IDE. You can code/run dotnet code in any editor or terminal if you like.
2. This person assumes that Visual Studio is the only IDE for dotnet. Looks like they never heard of Rider or VS Code or anything else.

This seems a bit harsh. The dotnet docs have tons of examples where it’s shown how to do something in VS Studio or VSCode. “How to use dotnet feature X in product Y” doesn’t seem like an unreasonable thing to include in your docs, especially with Microsoft having developed both.

WTF is he defining as an ad? “Advertising is the practice and techniques employed to bring attention to a product or service”. The whole section is bascially “Hey you can use Copilot to do this” - that’s an ad right there.

Again I think you’re being too harsh here. Not every mention of a product is necessarily an ad. The dotnet docs aren’t an ad for dotnet for example. Given that this section is at the bottom of the page, doesn’t demand any attention from the user and doesn’t really seem like a direction for the user to start using Copilot, I find it hard to really consider it a proper advertisement. It’s not saying “Hey you can use Copilot to do this”, it’s saying “If you want to use this with Copilot, here’s how to do so”. It makes no effort in convincing the reader that they should use Copilot, it’s just instructions for those who already do use it.

There’s also plenty of other places where the dotnet docs refer to non-dotnet products, e.g. this page on deep learning: https://github.com/dotnet/docs/blob/main/docs/machine-learning/deep-learning-overview.md

It mentions other products like Tensorflow and ONNX there. Are these mentions also ads?

1. A deployment target is not the same as “AI”
2. If a page/section is not named like “How to deploy example app to Azure” then it shouldn’t contain any reference to Azure. And yes you should complain about such stuff if it exists.

Plenty of the how-to guides end with “and here’s how to deploy your stuff to Azure!”. The dotnet docs even have an entire section on Azure, a service that has very little if nothing to do with how dotnet works. But it’s still mentioned and documented in the dotnet docs, because it can be useful information for dotnet developers.

That’s basically what the whole issue is about. WTF are you even talking about then? Just shut up and give an upvote.

They’re referring to how they don’t find it useful info, but other people who do use Copilot more intensively might find it useful. It’s also a completely different point: the creator of the issue objects to the docs section because they consider it an ad for Copilot. The comment author disagrees, but says they’d rather see it removed because it’s just not that useful information, though acknowledging that they might not be the target audience. It’s a different argument that does contribute to the discussion imo.

I mean, this user does quite eloquently raise a good point: https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/45996#issuecomment-2848267714

It’s a single link all the way at the bottom of the page, so not really obtrusive. And given that there are people using Copilot this way, it’s probably better to give them something to use docs-wise rather than leaving them to Copilot’s mercy. The article linked to is also pretty much just instructions on how to do it, no real gushing about how amazing Copilot supposedly is.

Hitler had 40+ assassination attempts/plots targetting him, 16 of which were before 1940.

Fair enough. It’s just that what you seemed to describe as a nonbinary transgender just sounds like nonbinary to me. No reason why they can’t want to change their genitalia, no?

Pardon my perhaps limited understanding, but “trans” quite literally means “opposite”, so transgender == “opposite gender”. “cis” means “same”, so “same gender”.

Both terms seem to imply that at the very least you fit in the two-gender construct, whereas nonbinary rejects that construct entirely. So I’m fairly certain that a “nonbinary transgender” can’t really exist?

Then again everything is not so black and white and labels rarely fully fit, so perhaps it’s a case of two partially fitting labels then?

Mods can take subs private temporarily if they notice brigading. They can also contact admins who could use other tools at their disposal. Not fun, but effective.

Admins and mods have other tools to deal with those issues. But given that Reddit is a corporation it will likely also remove content that are in a murky area rules-wise, or given the current political climate selectively apply the rules. That creates a risk for redditors who try to use the site legitimately as well.