AFAICT, those "some models" that go up to 32gb don't exist yet. I looked at every one of them on google's site and none had a 32gb option.

They're advertising the local NPU. I know RAM is a shitshow right now, but if you're going to use it for local stuff, 32gb should at least be an option on all of these.

RR is a dick, and Coyote is a failure. Team Acme FTW.

While discussing US legal code, semantics matter.

Seems you've got nothing. Here, you're quoting a biased rephrasing rather than the actual quote. The actual quote from Jimmy is:

The "major political parties" is not the same as "competing political candidates", period. The part you quoted, "Candidates", and tried equating to "major political parties", is in the title of the US code, not the text thereof, and it still isn't the same.

The "competing political candidates" could include a Republican and someone from the Green party but no Democrats, in which case the "major political parties" would not all need equal opportunities (eg. Dems could be excluded if there was no Dem candidate).

Your second comment doesn't parse. I think that's related to your misguided idea that Kimmel chose not to broadcast Talarico's interview as a means of sidestepping regulation, rather than Kimmel planning on broadcasting it and the FCC strong arming them to prevent it from airing on broadcast. Do you have ANY evidence it was the former? Do you have ANY evidence that Kimmel or ABC did not offer a spot to Paxton as well (for broadcast)?

Actually... that could be a great way of making good of a bad situation. Bear with me...

Use it as a honeypot for shitty cops.
Keep the Flock cameras up.
Allow bullshit to be entered into request forms.
Periodically take action on those that enter bullshit into the request forms - mass firings and barring from future service.
If we're being really nice, maybe one round of warnings first, then the firings on the next review round.
Repeat the process with stricter controls on each pass (require verified ID, require a warrant, verify the user ID passes background checks, verify the warrant is valid and applies, add a judge to the loop, etc etc..).
If/when the system is no longer used frequently enough to justify its operating costs, so be it.

On a single user system, I mostly agree. But on a multi-user system, especially one where someone else also needs root for some action, sudo is a damned fine solution. You can lock it down to specific commands with specific arguments for specific users on specific machines, AND you get the logging as well (you are doing secure logging to a centralized system/cluster,right?).

A simple real world example: you've got a cluster of web servers and a support team that needs to be able to restart them.
Of course, there are other ways to implement that access (besides handing out the root password or using sudo), but go ahead and compare the options. Don't forget that you need admins familiar with those solutions, and there will be other cases needing similar solutions. A standard tool (sudo) with a config that can be copied around to all the servers (thanks to the host based stuff) is quite useful. If you only dish out specific access to specific people, and those are people you would otherwise trust with the root password, where's the downside?

That said, it's not a big stretch to say that the whole idea of sudo is fundamentally abused and misused so regularly that many would be better off without it enabling their poor security practices (Ex. "%sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL").

If you have something to say, just say it.

Thanks for proving me correct... That doesn't mention "major political parties" at all.
And you completely ignored the latter part of my claim - that there is no evidence that other candidates for this office were not offered an equal opportunity.

That's not what it says, and there's no evidence that an equal opportunity on the network (note "network", not show) was not afforded to the other candidates.

On what basis are you saying that Kimmel only wants to give voice to one party?

Also, they do NOT have to give equal time, and "major parties" is not part of it; They have to afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office. IE: if Paxton passes on the opportunity, that doesn't block Talarico from airing.

ALSO, as you implied, the "broadcast network" has to give said opportunity. I see nothing in 47USC315 that says it has to be on the same show.

47USC315 also says, "Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any ... bona fide news interview ... shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection." IANAL, but this isn't a paid for appearance, and it is an interview, and it's only falling under this provision because the FCC recently reclassified how late night shows are handled.

There are too many ways in which this doesn't apply or is being applied incorrectly. It's the government strong arming a broadcaster to chill speech.

100%, which plays a big part in why it is so disheartening. While it's convenient to blame those in power, our fellow neighbors put them there and are keeping them there.

Is this not one way of doing it? And it's a way that will ensure future code contributions are much less likely to introduce stupid bugs (assuming you agree that Rust does just that).

I don't understand all the naysayers claiming it can't be done. Of course it can be done!

Weird stuff in the code (example above was a char array used to hold binary data) can be examined for how its used to deduce the correct implementation - one of the things that LLM's are actually good at. And since it's talking about large C codebases, they're likely well established and completely devoid of things like tests... so have the Rust output C-compatible libraries and run them through the exact same tests! Any remaining issues are just as likely to exist in the old codebase, but now you can sick a more junior dev (or an LLM) on those issues without worrying about introducing classic C errors.

IMO, the real question is if it's worth doing. Where are the arguments against doing it? The rust folks have some strong talking points on its advantages. What's the benefit to keeping a large C codebase in pure C if/when this option is available?

Nutters? It wouldn't be the first time he's sought out immunity not provided to anyone else (... and got it) - SCOTUS 23-939 Trump v. United States https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2Fcas...

No, Android Auto (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%2FAndroid_Auto%3Fid%3Dcom.google.android.projection.gearhead%26amp;hl=en_SG)
is not the Gemini App (https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.google.android.apps.bard).

The statement from TFA may simply be wrong.
IE: "Pichai is talking only about people who are opening the Gemini app or visiting the Gemini web interface to enter a prompt or access Gemini Live."

That statement wasn't made on the actual announcement that Pichai had released: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fx.com%2Fsundarpichai%2Fsta...

But, if that is accurate, then Android Auto usage doesn't count towards this 1 billion active monthly users stat, nor do Google Search results that include their AI results, nor does clicking on said results to get additional output from the LLM. But it's just some statement made by Ryan Whitwam from Ars Technica with no attribution, and Pichai's announcement lacked any of those details, so who's to say?

You kicked off this thread while noting, "people who went to Google search". I hope you can agree that those are not included in the stat (or, at the very least, that's not what the stat claims to include). FYI, that's not the "Gemini web interface".

WTF is this "again" bit referring to? That was my first reply on this thread.

Where in, "or visiting the Gemini web interface to enter a prompt or access Gemini Live," does it say that, "people who went to Google search," are included in the stat?

FYI, that's the context of the discussion that the AC was pointing out as missed by you... your own comment. Good job highlighting the part that contradicts your initial statement.