the C and fiber layers should be swapped, fragility-wise

I have to ask: what’s with all the obsession with immutable distro?

I guess the promise of having updates JustWork™? I don’t currently use one but I see the appeal.

However FWIW, unlike its namesake ChromeOS, the “Nixbook OS” this post is about is not actually an immutable distro: the instructions are to install NixOS normally and then clone the nixbook repo into /etc/nixbook and run its install.sh. Among other things it installs an update service which runs git pull on that repo as well as running nixos-rebuild boot --upgrade and flatpak update --noninteractive --assumeyes etc.

Cheers to this guy for what he’s doing, but the name is a little confusing. This approach works but it is not nearly as robust as the immutable distro paradigm implied by the name.

I don’t know if it’s on any TVs yet but in the US Amazon operates a LoRa and Bluetooth mesh network to allow various devices to get online through other people’s internet-connected appliances such as their Ring and Echo products: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Sidewalk

Important context!

They had to change this because newer laws like the CCPA classify some ways of transferring/processing data as a “sale”, even if no money is exchanged.

What? No. Do you really think their “sharing” with “partners” who are “providing sponsored suggestions” doesn’t involve money being exchanged? 🤔

Here is an abridged version of that FAQ entry consisting only of substrings of it:

The reason we’ve stepped away from making blanket claims that “We never sell your data” is because […] to make Firefox commercially viable […] we collect and share some data with our partners, including our optional ads on New Tab and providing sponsored suggestions in the search bar

All of the other words in there implying that they had to stop promising not to sell user data because of some (implied to be unreasonable) “LEGAL definition” of “sale” is imo insulting to the reader.

it works for me. did you forget to pay your git bill?

I haven’t heard of academics and/or media from China advocating for applications of phrenology/physiognomy or other related racist pseudosciences. Have you?

one can also get the full paper directly from yale here without needing to solve a google captcha:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/AI Personality Extraction from Faces Labor Market Implications_0.pdf

I don’t have the time nor the expertise to read everything to understand how they take into account the bias that good looking white men with educated parents are way more likely to succeed at life.

i admittedly did not read the entire 61 pages but i read enough to answer this:

Plastic surgery would become more popular.

One of the paper’s authors had the same thought:

“Suppose this type of technology gets used in labor market screening, or maybe dating markets,” Shue muses. “Going forward, you could imagine a reaction in which people then start modifying their pictures to look a certain way. Or they could modify their actual faces through cosmetic procedures.”‌

She also bizarrely says that:

“we are very much not advocating that this technology be used by firms as part of their hiring process.”

and yet, for some reason:

The next step for Shue and her colleagues is to explore whether certain personality types are drawn to specific industries or whether those personality types are more likely to succeed within given industries.

i haven’t used it myself but https://jmp.chat/ looks good if you’re OK with a US or Canadian number.

there is a lemmy community about it here: !sopranica@lemmy.ml.

cc @singpolyma@lemmy.ml

the leap from “lower factual error rates than an equally-prompted baseline without retrieval (as judged by an external LLM)” to “enables trustworthy, cross-domain scientific synthesis at scale and establishes the foundation for an ever-expanding encyclopedia”

Or, you know, just block domains that use Microsoft email

I’m guessing you probably don’t realize how many organizations host their email with Microsoft.

i agree reactions can be useful, but adding them to email the way Microsoft has is obnoxious for recipients using any client other than theirs. and, i think this is probably their intention: receiving an email reaction in a client that doesn’t render it as a reaction feels wrong and MS probably hopes this will encourage some people to switch to using Outlook.

the right way to add reactions to email would be to make it opt-in (and also not a vendor-specific header but instead something which aims to become a standard): clients should only allow reactions to messages which contain a header signaling that the sender supports receiving them.