

My best guess is that they don’t just index things, but rather download straight from the internet when they need fresh training data. They can’t really cache the whole internet after all…


My best guess is that they don’t just index things, but rather download straight from the internet when they need fresh training data. They can’t really cache the whole internet after all…
Huh, so if you don’t opt for these more specific number types, then your program will explode sooner or later, depending on the architecture it’s being run on…?
I guess, times were different back when C got created, with register size still much more in flux. But yeah, from today’s perspective, that seems terrifying. 😅
What really frustrates me about that, is that someone put in a lot of effort to be able to write these things out using proper words, but it still isn’t really more readable.
Like, sure, unsigned is very obvious. But short, int, long and long long don’t really tell you anything except “this can fit more or less data”. That same concept can be expressed with a growing number, i.e. i16, i32 and i64.
And when someone actually needs to know how much data fits into each type, well, then the latter approach is just better, because it tells you right on the tin.
Oh man, a zero byte long unsigned integer? Lots of languages represent it as an empty tuple these days (the “unit” type), but from quickly scanning the documentation, it looks like HolyC doesn’t support tuples, so I guess you gotta get creative…
I’m open for counterarguments, but I always felt this was a silly way of looking at things. You cannot measure stuff at the quantum level without significantly altering what you measured. (You can never measure without altering what you measured, since we typically blast stuff with photons from a light source to be able to look at it, but for stuff that’s significantly larger than photons, the photons are rather insignificant.)
As such, you can look at measuring quanta in two ways:
Well, and isn’t quantum entanglement evidence for 1.? You entangle these quanta, then you measure one of them. At this point, you already know what the other one will give as a result for its measurement, even though you have not measured/altered it yet.
You can do the measurement quite a bit later and still get the result that you deduced from measuring the entangled quantum. (So long as nothing else altered the property you want to measure, of course…)
The analogy that makes most sense to me so far, is this:
You rip a photograph in half and put both halves into envelopes. Now you send one of the envelopes to your friend in Australia. You open the other envelope. Boom! Instantaneous knowledge of what’s in the envelope in Australia. Faster than light!!!
In quantum terms, you “rip a photograph in half” by somehow producing two quanta, which are known to have correlated properties. For example, you can produce two quanta, where one has a positive spin and the other a negative spin, and you know those to be equally strong. If you now measure the spin of the first quantum, you know that the other has the opposite spin.


Do I want to know how they attached that quiver to her bikini bottom?
Capsaicin (the chemical that causes the heat sensation in chilis) is soluble in oil, so it can definitely play a role.
In my experience with maths, there’s a whole bunch of different conventions all over the place, so it might’ve genuinely been how they were taught, even if you were taught differently…
Oh yeah, that was my assumption, for sure, too. I was just playing devil’s advocate for the trenchcoat theory, because it’s funny.
I mean, probably happens a lot that the bones of different dinosaurs end up next to each other.
Would it happen for every T-Rex fossil in the same way? Well, less likely…


Also has to be said that KDE on those slower-moving distros is actually buggier than on up-to-date distros. I have to use Kubuntu LTS at work and it has so many more glitches and crashes compared to openSUSE Tumbleweed and NixOS on my personal laptop.
Yeah, and you don’t have to know which fork to choose. Only the compatible fork will show up in the search.
(I was going to recommend that, but had something in the back of head, that you needed a manual step to enable the configuration. But I just saw that this is described in the Plasma 5 version, not the Plasma 6 fork, so I guess, it’s not necessary anymore…)
It is the first one, yes. Just the normal keyboard shortcut settings. And all the Krohnkite shortcuts are prefixed with “Krohnkite”, so you can find them easily.
I believe, that’s something which became impossible with Wayland?
But it wasn’t very good under X11 either. Even back then, it was much less clunky to use the various KWin scripts, which offer tiling. Well, and by now Plasma has built-in semi-automatic tiling, which those scripts basically just configure, so they do now feel quite smooth.
Should note that this is still a manual process. For auto-tiling, you want e.g. Krohnkite.
The one you linked is only for KDE Plasma 5. For Plasma 6, you would use this fork: https://codeberg.org/anametologin/Krohnkite
I’m genuinely baffled how many oligarchs had contact with Epstein. I do believe their primary job qualification is a lack of morals, but there’s so many ways to be amoral, you don’t have to all be friends with the guy that offers pedophilia.


Yeah, I understand that it isn’t as bad, but it doesn’t explain why they didn’t go with something that’s entirely non-bad. We have the technology.
They cause a huge amount of load, deteriorating the service for everyone else. I’m also guessing the time ranges in the graph, where there’s no data, is when OP’s server crashed from the load and had to restart.
That kind of shit can easily trigger alerting and will look like a DDoS attack. I would be pissed, too, if I dropped everything to see why my server is going down and it’s not even proper criminals, but rather just some silicon valley cunts.