Firefox is my daily driver on my Ubuntu laptop, but for video streams and Google Meet (including virtual background[1]), I can see it still isn't utilizing my Intel GPU as much as Chromium (beta channel) does, so I split my usage between the two browsers to reduce the CPU usage for these specific cases.
I've followed the basic recommendations (from e.g. Arch Linux wiki) but still getting less utilization with Firefox according to intel_gpu_top.
[1] Well, at least virtual background works on Firefox now after their GSuite improvements.
Asking it about more technical details about how SD works for some specific task. Nothing to do with its ability to generate images itself. Although with newer breakthroughs like Latent Consistency Models, it's aging like milk already.
>"Looking up from the deck of golden gate bridge at the towers and metal work, the towers rise and arch back in an ominous and foreboding manner. more artistic, like an alphonse mucha propaganda poster - slightly fish-eye feeling" -- https://i.imgur.com/vyNg79f.jpg
Criticism for Foundry aside, it's an extordinary effort to implement a mature self-hosted alternative, especially as FOSS implies it's going to be a side project for most if not all of its developers.
Foundry's upside is that it's extensible (modules), which increases traction and nurtures a community.
Most of the FOSS attempts will probably die if they won't take that approach (extensibility that is).
Yeah that's how I see how it would work. Just build a framework for the players to interact in according to the basic mechanics of tabletop games and then expose a rich module API and hand it off to users. If you're clever about it I could imagine you could machine-translate the art asset formats made for Foundry, or design it to use it directly.
Great question. So far, I've just been doing this myself as a side project so I haven't spent much time thinking through how I would or could monetize it (open to suggestions on that). That being said, I think eventually, it would probably have to be some kind of subscription, if there's any real interest in it. It's not really built to be self hosted right now unfortunately.
I consider myself an advocate of sequence diagrams (of all other UML diagrams), so I wonder why the article doesn't mention that this type of diagrams is meant to depict testable flows the software components.
It's nice and all that you can clarify to your team what you want to gain (the big picture), and it's also nice if you want to explain how (details), but in my opinion it's not worth much if your sequence diagram doesn't explain test cases clearly and expect for them to be written.
I don't think attention really matters. A statement remaining on their website is like continuously saying/affirming whatever that statement is. Removing it means they have changed their minds about something it contains. Removing it just stops that affirmation, it doesn't really matter if people know what you used to think as long as they know you no longer do.
If you have a statement on your website that promises to never put cats on the moon but then you do, I imagine some shareholders/investors might feel misled. I don't know _if_ that opens someone up to legal action but I could see the argument.
Is the statement on their website or on a third party website? Changing your mind about what you publish is one thing, changing your mind about an interview you just gave is another.
but theres an open question now about whether or not that was MEANT to be an interview, or rather a closed door session to a small group of folks. if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics.
(i am not throwing stones, i've fallen foul of this as a blogger before, excusing myself from commonsense precaution in my eagerness to discuss industry relevant insights. private https://www.swyx.io/private)
> if Humanloop had not gotten clearance to post what they posted, this would have been a grave overstep of journalistic ethics.
Where did you get this idea? You don't "go on record" with a journalist. Everything you do and say around them is on the record by default. There are ethical codes and frameworks on what, when, and how to report but "private conversations are private" is certainly not considered normal.
Re your mea culpa, it's a completely different situation and I don't see how journalistic ethics would be applicable there. If you want to have a more appropriate term, maybe "blogger ethics"?
neither Raza nor myself are journalists, but we behave like them when we write stuff up for obvious HN bait. privacy by default is the overwhelming expected norm for private individuals. particularly at a closed door small group event. we abuse the system when we use our status as industry participants and become citizen journalists without first considering if the expectations are aligned.
> we abuse the system when we use our status as industry participants and become citizen journalists
Agreed. This includes not making statements like your previous one about "journalistic ethics". Consider this: If your now removed post had been containing the same information but based on a separate conversation with their ex-partner, with their consent to publish, would that had made it less problematic? Without having read the post, I imagine it wouldn't. So it turns out that there's more to it.
I'm not saying these posts aren't problematic, nor that journalists lack ethics. I am saying that "private conversations are private" is oversimplifying the matter and not part of journalistic ethics in the general. You're making references to professional code you lack qualifications for.
Consider medicine. Let's say Alex is visiting a sick family member. Alex has no medical training. They bring some drugs which later turn out to cause even worse health issues. "Medical ethics" isn't a useful framing for discussing that situation IMO, for similar reasons.
It's like those pentalobe security screws. Nobody thinks they'll stop a determined attempt to disassemble a product, but they're a signal that you're not meant to pull it apart. Then when you do, and you break it, they can point to the screws and say "well clearly you should have known not to do that."
I don't agree. Go search for HN threads relating to anything Sam Altman has said publicly, interviews he's given etc and you'll see that they always get posted multiple times on HN and the biggest thread always has 100s if not 1000s of comments.
This content was going to be wildly shared and discussed whether deleted or not, by deleting it they have at least a) made an official (yet soft, as it doesn't address any specific points) statement that it's not information they're trying to put out and b) probably reduced SEO / future views beyond these current discussions.
I can't see any argument for it getting more attention because of deletion than it would have got anyway?
I'm pretty sure Sam Altman knows about and understands Streisand effect. There are a myriad other explanations for "This content has been removed at the request of OpenAI."
I don't think this is ironic. They retracted something they said, this is perfectly legit.
I've deleted things I posted, including here on HN. You probably did too. And I've scraped data from the internet countless times. You probably did too. I don't think I'm an irony because of that. You probably aren't either.
This might not be about suppressing this particular bit of information so much about holding the group of journalists they invited to their agreements.
I've followed the basic recommendations (from e.g. Arch Linux wiki) but still getting less utilization with Firefox according to intel_gpu_top.
[1] Well, at least virtual background works on Firefox now after their GSuite improvements.