Eh, it was reported about the normal amount imo. With the violent lone-wolf types, sometimes media under-reports it to reduce copycat actions (see the famous Newswipe clip).

I’m aware of at least two posts about it from the ABC (national broadcaster)[1][2] and one from local news[3] (paywalled, mirrored here), though admittedly this one has a very local-news angle on it.

Most significantly, the manifesto favorably references Brenton Tarrant, the Australian-born terrorist who in March 2019 murdered 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Patten describes himself as having become fascinated by Tarrant’s actions.

There would appear to be copycat elements.

Yeah, hence some under-reporting of the details. There’s some fair discussion about reporting / commentary on recent protests there but I don’t personally think the comparison to this incident seems fair.

Cool idea, though I was surprised by the level of fidelity loss in the fountain example. I would’ve expected that to be a good case scenario for noise cancellation so maybe it just needs some more time to iterate and improve on its level of “false positive” removal.

SO comments are already CC-BY licensed (granted not -NC licensed, but still), but it doesn’t seem to have helped much.

But the winky face shows how serious they’re being!?

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

Excluding Piledriver (?) to Zen, wouldn’t 30% be the highest inter-generational IPC increase in Intel/AMD CPUs in at least 15 years? The article’s original title also included quotes around “ABSURD”, as the term is being re-used from the source’s clickbait YouTube title lol.

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

As an aside, you can edit your submission title on lemmy/kbin/mbin.

Different sources claim different numbers, but the rate is considered by most sources to be low.

While the statistics on false allegations vary – and refer most often to rape and sexual assault – they are invariably and consistently low. Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

https://theconversation.com/heres-the-truth-about-false-accusations-of-sexual-violence-88049

Typically no, the top two PCIE x16 slots are normally directly to the CPU, though when both are plugged in they will drop down to both being x8 connectivity.

Any PCIE x4 or X1 are off the chipset, as well as some IO, and any third or fourth x16 slots.

I think the relevant part of my original comment might’ve been misunderstood – I’ll edit to clarify that but I’m already aware that the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes are coming directly from the CPU (including when doing 2x8, if the board is designed in this way – the GPU-assigned lanes aren’t what I’m getting at here).

So yes, motherboards typically do implement more IO connectivity than can be used simultaneously, though they will try to avoid disabling USB ports or dropping their speed since regular customers will not understand why.

This doesn’t really address what I was getting at though. The OP’s point was basically “the reason there isn’t more USB is because there’s not enough bandwidth - here are the numbers”. The missing bandwidth they’re mentioning is correct, but the reality is that we already design boards with more ports than bandwidth - hence why it doesn’t seem like a great answer despite being a helpful addition to the discussion.

Isn’t this glossing over that (when allocating 16 PCIe lanes to a GPU as per your example), most of the remaining I/O connectivity comes from the chipset, not directly from the CPU itself?

There’ll still be bandwidth limitations, of course, as you’ll only be able to max out the bandwidth of the link (which in this case is 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes), but this implies that it’s not only okay but normal to implement designs that don’t support maximum theoretical bandwidth being used by all available ports and so we don’t need to allocate PCIe lanes <-> USB ports as stringently as your example calculations require.

Note to other readers (I assume OP already knows): PCIe lane bandwidth doubles/halves when going up/down one generation respectively. So 4x PCIe 4.0 lanes are equivalent in maximum bandwidth to 2x PCIe 5.0 lanes, or 8x PCIe 3.0 lanes.

edit: clarified what I meant about the 16 “GPU-assigned” lanes.

Sure, but not much of that battery improvement is coming from migrating the APU’s process node. Moving from TSMC’s 7nm process to their 6nm process is only an incremental improvement; a “half-node” shrink rather than a full-node shrink like going from their 7nm to their 5nm.

The biggest battery improvement is (almost definitely) from having a 25% larger battery (40Whr -> 50Whr), with the APU and screen changes providing individually-smaller battery life improvements than that. Hence the APU change improving efficiency “a little”.

They were careful with how they phrased it, leaving the possibility of a refresh without a performance uplift still on the table (as speculated by media). It looks like the OLED model’s core performance will be only marginally better due to faster RAM, but that the APU itself is the same thing with a process node shrink (which improves efficiency a little).

See also: PCGamer article about an OLED version. They didn’t say “no”, and (just like with the previously linked article), media again speculated about a refresh happening.

It looks like they were consistent with what they were talking about with how it wasn’t simple to just drop in a new screen and leave everything else as-is, and used that opportunity to upgrade basically everything a little bit while they were tinkering with the screen upgrade.

It is, I’ve used that to prevent automatic removal of leading zeroes when reading the values of bytes.

Based on the article it seems like it’s just a matter of not having to spend the time (and mental overhead) of doing that for all required columns and never slipping up on it (now just set and forget).

Fair enough. I suppose the terminology has evolved somewhat with time, and I can’t say I have much insight into a time period from before I was born.

You seem to be using the term “open source” for what is instead commonly called “source-available”, which has a distinct meaning from open source.

[Source-available software] includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.

[Open-source software] is released under a license in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.

edit: fixed duplicated phrasing

I think in this context (particularly with a very quick skim of the paper for some additional context), it it might be more helpful to think of air “powering” this design in the same way that electricity “powers” things. The focus isn’t on the energy source, it’s on the structural design of the “robot” itself.

Consider it another way: if their system/model/whatever designed a conventional electrically-powered robot without also designing an electrical generator or batteries etc, would you still discount it as “not being a robot”? The problem might be in our expectation based on the language being used. I might also be full of crap haha, but hopefully that’s another perspective to consider.