but like… none of this makes the terminal more powerful.
something like the Arcan lash/cat9 shell is a massive leap forward in terminal technology that may potentially completely change how we use it. it does this by understanding what makes the terminal productive: pipelining, batch processing and scripting.
meanwhile this is just… a skin.
…so they switched to a browser with a known history of breaching that trust?
what the fuck is wrong with you?
rocm is open source as well. amd have historically been the ones pushing for open standards in these things, probably because they’ve never been market leaders.
can’t even wear a tie these days because of woke, it’s a collar or nothing
the main thing is that the system end-users interact with is static. it’s a snapshot of all the weights of the “neurons” at a particular point in the training process. you can keep training from that snapshot for every conversation, but nobody does that live because the result wouldn’t be useful. it needs to be cleaned up first. so it learns nothing from you, but it could.
youtube changed their account naming system a year or so ago. every account has those numbers now, it’s just not visible if you set a display name.
is this stackless?
anyway, that’s interesting! i was under the impression that they eschewed os threads because of the gil. i’ve learned something.
no, they’re just saying python is slow. even without the GIL python is not multithreaded. the thread library doesn’t use OS threads so even a free-threaded runtime running “parallel” code is limited to one thread.
apparently not!
the thread library is aping the posix thread interface with python semantics.
nothing about any of those libraries dictates an OO approach.
yup, that’s true. most meaningful tasks are io-bound so “parallel” basically qualifies as “whatever allows multiple threads of execution to keep going”. if you’re doing numbercrunching in pythen without a proper library like pandas, that can parallelize your calculations, you’re doing it wrong.
python has way too many ways to do that. asyncio, future, thread, multiprocessing…
all programs are single threaded unless otherwise specified.
you are framing a fundamental issue with the system as a positive, which is confusingly common for crypto advocates.
i’m not interested in this conversation.
this reads like a mad rant.
first of all, bitcoin in its original form was meant to be used as a transaction log between banks. it was never meant to be a currency on its own, which can be seen in the fact that efforts in scaling up to more than a few million users consistently fail.
in practice, all cryptocurrencies result in a centralisation of power by default, whether they use proof of work or proof of stake, because they are built so that people with more resources outside the network can more easily get sway over the system. by either simply buying more hardware than anyone else (for pow) or pooling more of the limited resource (for pos) they can control the entire thing.
cryptocurrencies are a libertarian solution to the problem of capitalism, which is to say, a non-solution. the actual solution is to limit the use of financial incentives. i’d wager most people on lemmy would rather abolish currency altogether than go to crypto.
in the case of anubis one could argue that the goal is to save energy. if too much energy is being spent by crawlers they might be configured to auto-skip anubis-protected sites to save money.
also, i’d say the tech behind crypto is interesting but that it should never have been used in a monetary context. proof of stake doesn’t help there, since it also facilitates consolidation of capital.
okay, git using the same algorithm may have been a bad example. let’s go with video games then. the energy usage for the fraction of a second it takes for the anubis challenge-response dance to complete, even on phones, is literally nothing compared to playing minecraft for a minute.
if you’re mining, you do billions of cycles of sha256 calculations a second for hours every day. anubis does maybe 1000, once, if you’re unlucky. the method of “verification” is the wrong thing to be upset at, especially since it can be changed
the hashing part? it’s the same algo as here.
it sure sounds like it’s trying to. although i agree it’s probably intentionally hyperbolic.