HN user
This looks like the Prism folks, who are making binary/ternary versions of popular edge models, so that those models will fit on constrained devices like phones. E.g., their Bonsai model derived from Qwen:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48910545
Perhaps they got tired of LM Studio, etc., not being able to run their models properly.
Thank you, I was unaware of that. It looks like it's already support in the acme.sh client, but there is a Let's Encrypt discussion saying it's still pending at LE:
https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/dns-persist-01-deploymen...
I wonder if the interim version has been rolled out to some CAs.
I do this exactly, using ACME DNS:
https://github.com/acme-dns/acme-dns
CAUTION, though, the last time I downloaded a binary release, ClamAV triggered on it, so I kept my old version which worked. I was using the 1.0 series (without any problems!), and now it seems the project has picked up development again with a 2.0 series.
I'm speculating that it's not the selfie; it's where that selfie ends up (or with whom).
Television resolutions appear to be on the same naming path.
"Everything you've ever wanted is on the other side of fear." (George Addair)
Liminalism (if we can christen this as a movement, and we should) is a form dedicated to the discovery of digital found art. It is important not just because of its content, but because it signals the migration of critical terminology and thinking into popular discourse in a truly democratic sense, independent of the traditional confines of the art industry as expressed in exhibitions, galleries, and museums.
This is not the language of an elitist.
If anything, it sounds like someone defending Liminalism's inclusion in the contemporary canon from arrogant elitists.
Floridian. I thought "frozen lake" was some sort of Intel CPU reference.
The heavily ironic implication is that they're under NDA, so they can't attest to it, while more or less attesting it. Senator, I cannot confirm or deny that we definitely do this.
This could also be an unofficial-official way for Apple to "leak" that yes, they do this--which is on brand for how Apple handles "rumors" etc.
This is just Terminator with extra steps.
They cannot envision the scenario where their AI-powered robots turn on them, or at the very least are used against them (and then inevitably turn on everyone).
I think GP is both referring to and suggesting:
M4 Pro 64GB (14 CPU / 20 GPU), Gemma 4 31B Q4_K_M GGUF, LM Studio: time to first token 0.92s, 11.56 tokens/s.
Edit: For comparison with the other poster, same setup as above, but with Gemma 4 31B Instruct 8bit MLX (not sure if exactly the same model): time to first token 4.62s, 7.20 tokens/s; with a different prompt, 1.17s and 7.24 tokens/s.
All restoration choices are at least a little bit subjective.
That said, I agree with you!
My interpretation:
First, they can't attack a WiFi access point for which they do not know any password(s). Thus your multi-SSID access point with multiple passwords is "safe" from this particular attack.
However, second, they can attack an access point for which they know any password, gaining access to clients on the other SSIDs. This means your security is now effectively only the security of your worst SSID's password. It also may defeat your purpose in having multiple SSIDs/passwords in the first place.
The "We" is short for Westinghouse, or at least it was: Westinghouse Steered Stabilized Camera Mount, thus WESSCAM. Then they dropped an "S".
Granted pronouncing the name is ambiguous, Wes-cam or We-scam. But they're known well enough in the industry at this point that it's not a problem for them.
What? You don't want travel tips from an itinerant swinger? Or for itinerant swingers?
Colima is great. However, in the upcoming macOS 26 Tahoe, and mostly in macOS 15 Sequoia, Apple is beginning to provide a first-party solution:
https://github.com/apple/container
I've been experimenting with it in macOS 15, and I was able to replace Colima entirely for my purposes. Running container images right off of Docker Hub, without Docker / Podman / etc.
(And yes, it is using a small Linux VM run under Apple's HyperKit.)
Right. Define "safe."
Personally I consider Chrome to be one of the least-safe browsers available, because it sends my data to Google. Also it perpetuates a monoculture. However, others may define "safe" differently, excluding such considerations.
https://x.com/thdxr/status/1933561254481666466
ETA: The above link is at the bottom of the original submission's README. (https://github.com/sst/opencode) I posted it without context, and I have no opinion on the matter. Please read theli0nheart's comment below for an X rebuttal.
This line in the article is horrifying:
The researchers were surprised that when they activated VTA dopaminergic inputs into the aBLA they could reinstate fear even without any new foot shocks, impairing fear extinction.
That... seems like the first step in being able to literally induce fear without having to bother with pesky things like finding the subject's triggers. Although I suppose if one has direct access to the subject's amygdala, the point is somewhat moot.
Still, it's sort of like a reverse wirehead.
Portability. I use YubiKeys with desktop Macs, MacBooks, iPads, and iPhones. The alternative would be to create (Secure Enclave) keys in each of those devices and register each of those keys with each thing requiring authentication... which could take a while.
I guess the alternative is something like Passkeys synchronized via iCloud Keychain. Hopefully Apple is encrypting the Passkey key material within the Secure Enclave using each other Secure Enclave's public key. Otherwise it kind of defeats the whole purpose of having a Secure Enclave. (If I remove a YubiKey from a computer, I have some assurance that computer can't authenticate with YK-controlled accounts.)
"We have no moat. But we are well-capitalized, so in classic early-mover monopolist fashion we'll try to pull the ladder up, then use funds to bri--er, lobby--the government into smacking down climbers."
The last time I checked (this may have changed), Firefox also tags the default search engines with URL query parameters indicating that the search came from Firefox. When I tried to change this it would not let me edit the default URLs. I had to add entirely-new versions of Google and DuckDuckGo, with custom names and stripped-down URLs in order to avoid the tagging.
No doubt it is revenue-related, but it's also a privacy problem.
That particular passage, perhaps; however one can certainly believe growers destroying an abundance to control prices. It certainly doesn't sound like the purported overabundance of food was evenly distributed:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/02/johnsteinbeck....
We'd love to believe that you care about privacy, Google--just stop sending any non-user-requested data from Chrome to any Google property.
Also, just to muddy these waters, Apple has the ProRAW format--which isn't a video format at all, it's a still-picture format.
Ars Technica still puts this blurb at the end of their Reddit-related articles:
"Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit."
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/06/the-reddit-protests-...
(That article is a day old now, and I still don't think it includes everything that's happened late this week.)
The thing is, if I was somewhat interested in a Mozilla VPN service, this spectacularly idiotic decision to deploy full-page intrusive advertising into Firefox makes it 100% certain I will never buy the Mozilla VPN service--because, how can I trust that they won't do the equivalent to that service? What's to stop them from blocking certain sites (on the other side of the VPN) as part of some promotion? Or worse?
They've made it clear they don't believe their own language about privacy and user choice. They've compromised one product to advertise another. And perhaps worse, they doubled-down about it in Bugzilla with corporate doublespeak, which to me is the tell that they'll absolutely do it again.
It's amazing how apt the trust-thermocline analogy is.
Bitwarden is cloud-based with synchronization to local caches. If you want total control over your data with Bitwarden you will need to run the server/cloud side. I'd caution that running a Bitwarden server is not for everyone, as one could make the security worse than the Bitwarden-company-hosted cloud service.
I run Vaultwarden on my LAN, with no public/Internet facing service, and sync only on my LAN.