Differentiation
At least there is now a clear differentiation between Alma and Rocky Linuxes.
4205 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Jun 2007
If there are no exact RHEL clones, then should I even bother testing on RHEL equivalents or should I just delete that VM and save some time and disk space?
Don't bother with RHEL testing from now on, if a RedHat customer wants to run your application and there are problems they should get on to RedHat support and it will be up to them to fix and submit patches - the customer is paying enough for it.
In the spirit of being fair to Yahoo, lets not forget that their entire 3 billion accounts were hacked
https://www.theregister.com/2017/10/03/yahoo_says_one_beeelion_user_hack_figure_wrong_its_three/
9 assignable buttons and 2 scroll wheels!
The MX Master 3 is not a gaming mouse but has god knows how many buttons and two scroll wheels. I use the second scroll wheel to zoom in or out, it is a real time saver, to almost the same extend as the forward/backwards buttons. Works on Linux too.
If you were trying to scroll a window a line at a time by using one of the buttons at the end of a scrollbar and went too far, you didn't have to move all the way to the other end to correct it, on RISC OS you just used the adjust button to move in the opposite direction to the arrow.
Training data:
- are NOT available to other customers.
- are NOT available to OpenAI.
- are NOT used to improve OpenAI models.
- are NOT used to improve any Microsoft or 3rd party products or services.
- are NOT used for automatically improving Azure OpenAI models for your use in your resource
...if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you. This is hosted on Azure after all.
And shouldn't are be is? Although data is a plural, that just looks so wrong.
The LLMs do not keep large chunks of recognisable code, that could be tagged with an appropriate licence. The information[1] from any particular input is smeared across thousands of the nadan[2] values and gunged together with all of the other inputs. At best you could manage "This character of output came from a% triggering nadan(2006) and b% nadan(7361) and .... nadan(2006) is x% this licence, y% that licence... multiply together and tag the character. On to the next character[3].
An easy way to do it would be to partition the training data by licence, effectively giving a separate LLVM for each licence, and only serve up suggestions from the LLVM(s) compatible with the target project's licence. e.g. If the target project is GPL, only the GPL LLVM can be used to generate code snippets, then attributions are preserved by default.
Partitioning may affect the LLVMs ability to generate useful output (ymmv), particularly for licences with smaller code base, but it would avoid this can of worms, and also allow the possibility to have licences which specifically bar the code from used to train AI, which must be respected.
We've come to expect nothing less than half-hearted and ineffectual security implementations by Microsoft, but more worrying is the stodges they stuffed on to ECMA and ISO committees to get the crock of shit non-specification that is OOXML adopted as an official standard - what else have they rubber stamped since?
BTC-e was "one of the primary ways by which cyber criminals around the world transferred, laundered, and stored the criminal proceedings from their illegal activities."
"For years, Bilyuchenko and his co-conspirators allegedly operated a digital currency exchange that enabled criminals around the world – including computer hackers, ransomware actors, narcotics rings, and corrupt public officials – to launder billions of dollars,"
Without crypto, just how much harder would it be for these criminal to extract payment without getting caught?
Crypto blenders are legitimate tools that can be used for illegitimate means.
NO THEY ARE NOT!
The only reason they exist is to launder the proceeds of digital crime.
Idiots loosing money playing with make believe crypto coins can be a source of amusement, but helping to fund NK's ability to chuck nuclear weapons at the rest world is where the fun stops.
Maybe the judge can determine the answers to the following three questions:
1. Does the program perform a useful and accurate service, or is it's primary reason to create fear and extract payment?
2. Is any payment system reasonable and transparent, or does it use deceptive practices such as auto-renewal?
3. Can the program be removed from the machine easily, or does it require specially software to eradicate it?