Someone in these comments literally ordered one from a reservation today. So there.

It doesn’t matter that the title uses the name of the project accurately? Ok.

The project is literally called “Fedora Al Developer Desktop Initiative”. It was blocked due to heavy community backlash. The title is not sensationalized. It’s the exact article title from the webpage.

Lemmy removes all metadata from uploaded images.

I just installed Read You from F-Droid.

I think self-hosting an aggregator lets you keep a cross-platform record of what you’ve read and what not. You mostly just need an app.

That link goes to a to a forum, which doesn’t have subscriptions. I figured out the answer, though.

1. I went to the Steam Frame page.
2. Near the bottom was “Follow Steam Hardware for updates, news, and launch information”.
3. That page has a “Links” menu with an RSS link.

Note: if you go to the page in step 2 yourself, the RSS link will likely be in your local language. My link above is in English.

Well, that’s a good idea. I haven’t thought about RSS in ages. Like I forgot that was even a thing. I could write a back-end that polls the RSS feed for its last updated date, and if I find something, then notify subscibers. Subscribers like an app someone makes.

I don’t know much about writing Android apps, but I feel like if I were to write the stupidest one, post it on GitHub, and advertise the project to people, someone will be so offended at its stupidity that they’ll fix it for me.

I can handle the back-end stuff just fine.

Just kidding. I’ll go find some RSS app that has notifications. I just like making things, and making a “Steam Hardware Alert” app seems like fun.

We agree! That’s what I meant when I said, “Any real news from Valve.”

I guess “real news from Valve” wasn’t clear enough and could be mistaken for also including NewRandomYouTubeGamerX64_L33tSauce’s pricing opinions. I guess I just don’t condider that news. I thought the title was clear. TIL!

As long as you’re turing complete

I think you can stop there. Any computable function can be run on any Turing complete machine. You just need the right machine code. So you don’t really need to add further qualifications.

However, if you do… If you say C needs to be able to read input, write to files and devices, allocate and randomly access memory, or talk to an operating system in any way, then you’ve tied it to a particular (abstract) architecture. So, I’d say that’s a pretty low level language on the abstraction spectrum. Most other languages are higher than it. If you were to rate programming languages from 0 to 10, C would be about a 3. Maybe even 2 for kernel code. Python would be like a 7, and SQL would be like an 8.

Anyone saying a language is strictly either “high” or “low” is missing a lot of nuance, and C is definitely on the low end.

Plasma 6 just came out, and it contains a whole lot of new UI and features. It’s much more than just security fixes.

I plan to eat only rice and beans that month.

Two Steam fanboys downvoted you.

I have the Mojora’s Mask version, but I stored the power adapter in the same bag as the console and went on a road trip and the whole back of the shell got terribly scuffed. 😖 Like gouged, even. The little folding plug had opened up and sat there vibrating against the shell for hours.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No real arguments from me. It was a mistake on my part to equate what I had in my mind with the meme above. It is really is two different things.

I just spontaneously remembered the FTL drive from the novel “Variable Star” by Spider Robinson and Robert Heinlein. The operator of the drive must hold multiple mutually contradictory thoughts in their mind at once, for hours at a time, in shifts with the other operators. Usually two at a time for redundancy. A failure to have at least one operator holding the required mental state would stall the drive and restarting it was very difficult.

It was never really explained how it works, but it’s taken totally seriously. It’s not like flying in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” where you fall and forget to hit the ground. I thought it was a clever idea. To make consciousness an explicit part of FTL travel by basically holding your mind in a superposition of thought.

What is that even supposed to mean? Did they make a typo?

Not exactly. At least I don’t think. Einstein didn’t believe in quantum mechanics at all, or that it was inherently random until measured. Bohr said it was, but I don’t think he necessarily equated conscious observation with measurement. Einstein believed there must be hidden variables, but if there are, they’re non-local.

it’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome.

Thing is, that’s an assumption. You dont know that for sure. Just like you can’t prove the speed of light isn’t different in different directions. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be free to believe that, but you must admit it’s an assumption.

I’m not a really mystical person, but I don’t discount the possibility. That would be arrogant. Simply being conscious is rather bizarre. How does the universe even support that? What is it? Is there a consciousness field? Why does a blob of fat, protein, and sodium ions give rise to consciousness? Surely, life could have evolved and thrived without experiencing life. I can easily imagine mindless, robotic life just doing it’s thing.

Since no one can currently explain any of that, and no one can know for sure a wavefunction has collapsed until you’ve lookef at the results, I also don’t discount that consciousness might play a role. I remain agnostic about it.

imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness.

If you don’t think there’s something special and unusual about consciousness, I don’t know what to say. 😄 I don’t believe in a soul, but at least I admit that consciousness is special, and that the universe is weird because of that.

Well, if you look at the plate, then you’ve collapsed the wave function, and the data on the hard drive is then determine, and can’t contradict the result on the plate.

Damn, that’s quite the write-up! I actually haven’t watched any of her videos in over a year, but I used to watch them a lot, so I figured I’d give her credit for part of my education. Her takes did seem a little odd at times, but it was refreshing to watch a science curmudgeon sometimes. I simply got sick of her schtick after a while, and did read a little controversy about her. I had no idea about the trans stuff.

The context of what each speaker is saying matters. Words don’t have much meaning in isolation except for simple ones like “no”. You could have a degree in the Philosophy of Science and still struggle to define “theory” accurately and succinctly.

One speaker is using the word as a positive thing (accurately). After all, a theory is the best we can say about how the world works. The second speaker is using the word pejoratively. In that sense it actually doesn’t mean the same thing, and any scientist would argue that the second person doesn’t understand what they mean when scientists say “theory”.

Note: I said when scientists say theory. Words don’t have inherent meaning, so the speaker matters. The speaker can only hope their audience takes their words the way they’re intended. There’s no guarantee that they will.

The second speaker is trying to refute science by quoting scientists, yet using the word in a way that scientists don’t. That’s obviously dumb. But it is the way that most non-scientists use the word, so you could say the second speaker is just confused about what scientists have been saying when they use the word. The scientists’ goal should be to correct the second speaker’s understanding of what scientists mean when they use the word. The word itself is not actually important. You can get across the meaning without ever using the word itself.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? Neither. It’s a simple misunderstanding of how scientists uses the word when they speak. Unless, of course, the second speaker knows the scientific definition, and is pretending to not know in order to pander to an audience.