I don’t agree both sides do it to nearly the same degree

gestures at everything

Mhhmm yeah. If you don’t see both sides being equally ridiculous, there’s a good chance you’re blinded by bias for one of those teams.

Yeah, hot take for Lemmy. But absolutely true.

Indeed! You just described US politics also. Both sides!

There’s no information, it’s fud, bitly links in text in a graphic. That’s why I did. This post is garbage.

ChatGPT went through a phase of overly bubbly upbeat responses, they chilled it out tho. Not sure if that’s what you saw.

One thing is for sure with all of them, they never say “I don’t know” because such responses aren’t likely to be found in any training data!

It’s probably part of some system level prompt guidance too, like you say, to be confident.

Cool I joined. I haven’t used mastodon because I use X, which is fine for me and uses heavy in my industry. Will try out mastodon a bit in the eves instead of Lemmy. Ping me there for a follow, I’m @locuester@retro-gaming.com

Just know that plenty of ppl agree with you. We are just tired of constantly talking about it. If you find a good instance with free thinking, free speech loving, idea sharing people please let me know haha

Your second paragraph is spot on, but you’ll never get those people to accept the damage they caused. Bringing it up just stirs up shit. Sucks.

It’s no different. A new version of the consensus code needs written and deployed.

That page you linked is the same on all chains. All have a proposal, discussion, implementation, waiting period (for code to be deployed), and activation. That’s just blockchain 101

Tezos would still require all nodes to upgrade to the code which contains the new algorithm. It can’t just automatically know what the new code is. It then can schedule these to activate at a certain block using a signaling system of some sort. If some nodes didn’t upgrade, this would cause a hard fork if the version they are running doesn’t have the new version required to run the new algorithm

Its behavior and process as outlined in the link you sent is no different from other chains.

Bitcoin uses version bits to perform these types of upgrades (see bip 9 implemented in 2016)

Ethereum uses something similar. Solana’s activation mechanism is called “feature gate activation”.

It’s the same with all the chains. An algorithm change is a breaking change. If you don’t implement it, your validating node will not continue with the rest.

Bitcoin has the BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) process. BIP-52 is an example of a proposal to change the algorithm due to energy concerns.

If the humans reach consensus it will change. However, I maintain that software can’t be programmed to adjust for social concerns - the humans have to change it.

So are bicycles. They do a thing and they do it well.

lol it can’t adjust on public approval. It’s software that runs. It’s valuable. If it wasn’t, people wouldn’t run it.

It can hard fork with a consensus mechanism change anytime someone writes one and people decide it’s the best path forward. Ethereum decided this and did this.

That’s not happening with Bitcoin because those that understand how it works agree it’s the best system to use.

I use Bitcoin as a store of value, and Solana for day to day stuff and financial investments like lending and liq providing. That’s my preference, for now. It’s a very fluid industry, nothing is set in stone, although Bitcoin appears to be pretty solidly the preferred secure store of value.

It’s a good example that illustrate why automated systems shouldn’t be left running unsupervised, even if it’s designed by the best minds with the best of intentions.

The network is constantly supervised and mining is a competitive business. The network was built to adjust, and is working precisely as intended.

You’ve mistaken the manufacturers aluminum cost cutting measure for a feature.

Ha yeah. I would absolutely confirm there is no data connection

Can confirm. I’m a tech worker. No smart devices. Laser printer. Very close to going back to a flip phone.

I am looking at some smart locks, but they’re able to be used as dumb locks with PIN code and physical key also. And they have a usb power port on the outside you could plug a battery into.

I’ve gone down the smart home route a decade ago and only did non-cloud integrated devices with physical controls also. But it’s a part time hobby to maintain it.

ChatGPT can make ridiculous claims about what it can do. It sometimes even says that it does real world things when it’s laughably impossible.

I get the best results, and it’s right there in X for me.

Yes, I realize I am committing a mortal sin around these parts by using Elon products but us people do exist here.

Grok:

To solve this CAPTCHA, we need to identify which of the System-on-Chip (SoC) images can boot mainline Linux. Mainline Linux refers to the official Linux kernel maintained by the Linux community, and not all SoCs have adequate support for it due to varying levels of driver development and community support. Based on my knowledge of SoCs and their Linux compatibility up to my latest updates, let’s analyze each image:

1. Harris S80C286-16 F3360 Δ8943: This appears to be an older Intel 80286-based chip, typically used in early PCs. It does not support mainline Linux, as Linux requires more modern architectures.
2. Xilinx Spartan-6: This is an FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array), not a traditional SoC. While it can run Linux with custom configurations, mainline Linux support is limited and not standard.
3. Rockchip RX3399: Rockchip SoCs, such as the RK3399, are well-known for their mainline Linux support, especially in single-board computers like the Rock Pi 4.
4. ITE IT8516E: This is likely a super I/O chip or embedded controller, not a full SoC capable of running a general-purpose OS like Linux.
5. Intel '82: This is too vague to identify, but it seems to be an old Intel processor. Older Intel chips may not have mainline Linux support.
6. Qualcomm MSM8916: Qualcomm SoCs often have limited mainline Linux support due to proprietary drivers. The MSM8916 (Snapdragon 410) has some community efforts but is not fully mainline-compatible.
7. Marvell PXA1928: Marvell PXA series chips have had mixed support. The PXA1928 has limited mainline Linux support and is not widely recognized for it.
8. Intel '91: Again, too vague, but likely an older Intel chip with no mainline Linux support.
9. Texas Instruments OMAP 850AZVL: Older TI OMAP chips have limited mainline support. The 850 series is quite outdated and unlikely to boot mainline Linux.
10. Broadcom BCM2709: This is the SoC used in early Raspberry Pi models (e.g., Pi 2). Broadcom SoCs have partial mainline support, but much of the Raspberry Pi ecosystem relies on custom kernels.
11. Samsung S5L8930X: This appears to be an older Samsung chip, possibly from an iPhone or similar device. It lacks mainline Linux support.
12. Allwinner A13: Allwinner SoCs, like the A13, have growing mainline Linux support, especially with community efforts for devices like the Cubieboard.
13. SCEI CXD90036: This is likely a Sony PlayStation-related chip. It is not designed for mainline Linux.
14. Mediatek MT6577: Mediatek SoCs have historically had poor mainline Linux support due to proprietary firmware requirements.

Conclusion:

The SoCs that are known to have reasonable mainline Linux support based on my knowledge are:

• Rockchip RX3399
• Allwinner A13

Thus, you should select the squares containing:

• The Rockchip RX3399 (third image in the top row).
• The Allwinner A13 (first image in the bottom row).

Click on these two squares and then press “VERIFY”.

No. In fact it explicitly doesn’t allow that.