Vivaldi is Chromium based
Yes. And? It is open source, and Vivaldi modifies it heavily.
You’re criticizing browsers based on “Shitty Browser A” while promoting browsers based on “Shitty Browser B”. Both categories are heavily modified and just as viable.
People need to stop being scared of Chromium-based browsers.
Exactly this. Micron ended their consumer RAM. Sansung here is just stopping producing something that is arguably outdated, and has a perfectly fine, already more available, most often cheaper or equivalent modern replacement.
In the same way that you are implementing the UI, you sometimes also need to implement the UX. Animations are part of the UX, preloading is part of the UX… That sort of things.
Problem is the e2e encryption. The bridge basically decrypts your emails and makes them locally accessible.
It is technically impossible at the moment to keep your emails end-to-end encrypted and not have to use a bridge for your client of choice. It will only be possible if your client of choice partners with Proton to integrate them, or if a standard for e2e encrypted emails pops up and both Proton and your client adopt it.
Because forking a buggy suite isn’t always the best choice? If they have the ressources, and they do, making their own is best for everyone. More choices.
Both are to be designed then developed.
Obviousness? If you mass layoff your tech staff, you take the risk of more technical failures.
A smaller staff cannot do the same work as a larger one, and I guarantee you they’re being asked to progress at the same speed. So, the tradeoff is on the quality of the product and the testing, not on the speed of development.
This, rather than building new fission reactors, we should fund research on fusion. It is really promising, and addresses all the biggest issues of fission.
I have my own gitea server and very happy with it!
Because Eurovision doesn’t have “Must be a european country” as a rule
I’ll add “how expensive” to the list. Sometimes you’ll have to burn through devices.
This is a step in the right direction, but these sanctions are really weak. You can do better.
I am a dev as well, and to build a website you traditionally need a dev. Well, nowadays, you can build a website with a “no code” website builder. That’s the most common “no-code” use.
Not that it’s relevant to this conversation, but that doesn’t stop people from hiring me to build their website, because “no code” also means “limited customization” and/or “low quality”.
“Building something” and “Building something that traditionally requires dev work” are not the same thing.
The software you use always needed code to make, but it doesn’t aim to skip the “hire a dev” phase of your project. If it does, it is “no code”.
And for the sake of argument, let’s say that Blender doesn’t exist and no other software fulfilling the same purpose exists. Then you’d have to commission a dev (team) to create that software so that you can train people to create 3D models. But the dev building your 3D modeling software doesn’t typically have the skills to use the software afterwards, so it does not fit the “no-code” definition.
TL;DR: It is a “no-code” software when you can skip the “hire a dev” phase of your project and use said software instead.
No, it definitely does not cover almost all software. Most software does not aim to allow a random user to build something that usually requires a dev.
When you use an OS, you build nothing. When you use a browser, you build nothing. When you use a game, you build nothing. When you use a graphics editor, you build something, but it’s not something that a dev could do.
I could go on with a list of almost all software like this, but that’s not a good use of my time, and I hope it is not necessary.
“no-code” software is a very specific category of software that aims to enable users to build something that usually is built by a dev, without needing one.
And while “no-code” can be a weird name, it makes sense when you read the definition I just gave. Just like “serverless” does not mean there is no server involved (obviously), but simply means you don’t even need to think about the server part.
Not a single part of your answer is about how the brain works.
Concepts are not things in your brain.
Consciousness is a concept. It doesn’t exist in your brain.
Thinking is how a human uses their brain.
I’m asking about how the brain itself functions to intepret natural language.
That doesn’t answer the question you quoted.
Of course the “understanding” of an LLM is limited. Because the entire technology is new, and it’s far from being anywhere close to being able to understand to the level of a human.
But I disagree with your understanding of how an LLM works. At its lower level, it’s a bunch on connected artifical neurons, not that different from a human brain. Now please don’t read this as me saying it’s as good as a human brain. It’s definitely not, but its inner workings are not so far. As a matter of fact, there is active effort to make artificial neurons behave as close as possible to a human neuron.
If it was just statistics, it wouldn’t be so difficult to look at the trained model and identify what does what. But just like the human brain, it is incredidbly difficult to understand that. We just have a general idea.
So it does understand, to a limited extent. Just like a human, it won’t understand what it hasn’t been exposed to. And unlike a human, it is exposed to a very limited set of data.
You’re putting the difference between a human’s “understanding” and an LLM’s “understanding” in the meaning of the word “understanding”, which is just a shortcut to say that they can’t be compared. The actual difference is in the scope of understanding.
A lot of the efforts in the AI fields gravitate around imitating a human brain. Which makes sense, as it is the only thing we know that is capable of doing what we want an AI to do. LLMs are no different, but their scope is limited.
Unforunately, there is no solid alternative at the moment. Firefox used to be great, but the quality of the browser has been consistently declining for years now. In terms of features, stability, and accuracy. The various forks I tested back when I couldn’t deal with Firefox’s issues any longer had the exact same issues.
At least Vivaldi is european.