> My last Nike shoes weren't even the same size/shape
This is something that frustrates me to no end. How are clothing item sizes not standardized yet?
For example, I recently went to buy new Jeans, so I went to the same store where I got my current Jeans, asked for a size 28, and tried it on. How is it possible that my size 28W Basic Straight Jeans from Fox fit me, while a pair that fits the exact same description is too small?
I later went to a different branch, and there I found another pair which fits the exact same description, and it did fit me!
I have encountered this type of thing inany places, like when buying shoes one of the employees at the store told me "We don't have this in size 42 in stock, but we do have 41 and our sizes are larger".
Imagine if you went to McMaster Carr and asked for an M3 screw, and being told "We are out of M3, but our M2.5 is larger so it should work for you"
Someone shopping for an M3 screw would not be interested it trying out a smaller one, but research has shown that people are interested in trying on a smaller size with clothes ;)
However, clothes are nearly impossible to simultaneously standardize and commoditize: people (and their feet) come in all shapes and sizes, so different brands in particular, but also different lines of those brands, will have different proportions.
As a tall guy, I hate that clothes keep growing in width with larger sizes, but rarely grow in length (pants/trousers included), but only because you can't get things without trying them on in multiple sizes.
If you do not understand why standardized sizes are not mandated or something similar, just look at any bespoke garment creation and all the variable measures being taken for a shirt, pants or jacket — just make realistic combination of all of them in different sizes, and you are looking at ~1000 "standard sizes" or more.
> The shortcoming. Immich's face recognition is account-scoped. One real person becomes a separate entry in your library, in your partner's library, and in every shared album you both touch. Search for them and you get a third of their photos. Name them in one account and the name stays there. The People page tracks containers, not people.
This definitely reeks of LLM (I’m not even going to attempt to understand it). I’ve seen similar false contrasts and awkwardly worded sentences before in other LLMs, but GPT would probably say “rather than people” instead. Claude does have a distinct style (that, to be fair, is copied by many others, recently noticed it in GLM 5.3 Flash).
> Gravity Linux and Asahi Linux are two independent projects working towards the shared goal of a strong, open OS ecosystem on Apple Silicon devices. Gravity Linux was initially forked from Asahi Linux over differences in policy, namely regarding LLM use. We have tremendous respect for the Asahi Linux project and emphasize our shared goal of running Linux on Apple Silicon.
OP is the same poster from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49717638 who was noted as having been banned from Asahi Linux over hiding use of LLMs (doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this) and accusations of having Apple proprietary knowledge (challenged by OP).
I disagree with this also, but the latter was so obviously wrong that I figured I should leave a reply. We are separate projects and what Asahi does is their business, our interactions will be in upstream projects and follow upstream guidelines.
It's kinda sad that this cool project is mired in controversy. On one hand it is kinda radioactive for a former Apple engineer to work on this, even if you worked on something else entirely while at Apple. On the other hand I really, really want proper Linux support with full GPU support on modern Macs and I feel like AI is an incredibly useful tool towards that effort.
Oh well, if this doesn't pan out, hopefully someone else will vibe code for a week and get it working in the near future.
Let’s take the kind view? If Apple has a problem in a former engineer possibly using insider knowledge that is first and foremost a problem between Apple and said engineer. Reasonably if that first round kicks off, in the second round of problems an OSS project is possible in scope.
The engineer and the project have discussed these risks and decided to continue in a fork from Asahi. So I would say that this is (nearly) how it is supposed to go. Asahi stays clean from contagion and Gravity Linux has taken a, hopefully well considered, risk.
From a brief look, it seems separate from Asahi, although it builds on some of Asahi's existing work. I'm still not clear why it needed to be a separate project rather than contributing M4 support upstream. Could be a good reason, but it does look a bit duplicative at first glance.
Asahi’s approach avoids any use of AI coding agents, etc at all (even for debugging, testing, and so forth). The amount of work/effort the Asahi team did for M1/M2/M3 is near superhuman, and M4 is gonna take all that effort again, since Apple likes to change things, a lot, and doesn’t really document their hardware device interfaces in detail.
Gravity approaches this with an attitude that using an LLM is indeed allowed (per upstream Linux contribute requirements), particularly for analysis, debugging and testing. The goal is to get M4 support contributed back to to the upstream kernel. (And eventually M5, M6, A18…)
Ideally, the documentation about hardware interfaces from this project could be used for other people who want to write kernel drivers for Linux or even for other operating systems. It’s mostly a matter of documenting what the device interface actually is.
None of this would be possible without Asahi’s foundational work and techniques to make clean room reverse engineering possible. Despite differences on opinions about AI, I can’t stress the quality of their work or the effort they’ve put in enough.
Even though the kernel module is open-source (sort of, development still happens behind closed doors), it's still an out-of-tree module, rather than being built into the kernel, which would give you as smooth an experience as with AMD or Intel, who's GPUs literally do just work on any distro with no fuss.
It’s never gonna be a smooth experience with Linux on Macs, because of installation, but also firmware upgrades etc. there’s always some manual steps involved and nothing will change unless Apple itself starts supporting Linux natively
But there have been many cases where companies (Google, Apple, Meta, etc...) got fined millions or billions of dollars for various violations like antitrust.
I assume that breaching into third-party systems should carry similar fines. Especially for systems that are for all intents and purposes shared infrastructure. Just imagine how many systems you could compromise if you got hold of RubyGems, PyPI, NPM, Debian, etc.
Suppose you're a firework company and your fireworks blow up, burning down the entire town. Could the company be sued? What is considered reasonable safety measures?
IANAL, but I'm pretty confident there would be a lawsuit. Who gets charged might differ, depending if it is the firework factory that didn't take adequate safety precautions or a chemical supplier or someone else. If there wasn't an ability to sue that would be fucking crazy and we should all get up in arms about it. And isn't insurance supposed to be there to help mitigate the damages, regardless of fault?
Personally, given how it seems OAI's agents have been getting through either pretty obvious places (e.g. /etc/hosts) or that there wasn't close monitoring of the most obvious places (e.g. DNS, artifactory), I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to find them negligent. Even if a single employee is to blame then are they not to blame for not monitoring the agents regardless? Unless the story is that the employee intentionally circumvented defenses (why?) then it seems it would be on OAI. But again, IANAL, I'm just someone who think if we can't sue we can sure riot until we can
There's a difference between being able to be successfully sued (civil liability, petitioned by a private entity) and charged (criminal liability, or petitioned by a government entity).
The thresholds for suing and charging differ greatly depending on the circumstances.
Another set of hypothetical examples that make things muddier:
- If I drive a fishing boat into a pier, I am liable, not the manufacturer of the boat
- If I drive a car over someone lying in the road, I am liable, not the manufacturer of the car
- If my life is in danger and I shoot a gun and kill my attacker, neither I nor the manufacturer are liable so long as I obeyed the relevant self defense laws and gun possession of whatever jurisdiction I am in
- If I fire a gun into a crowd indiscriminately, I am liable and several jurisdictions have used that to also hold gun manufacturer liable as well
That last example has been less successful as of late, but there are other variations too.
USB-C actually has pins dedicated to application/debug use (SBU1 and SBU2).
"SBU1 and SBU2: these are low-speed lines used only for Alternate Mode and accessory mode. For example, with
DisplayPort, AUX+ and AUX– transmit over the SBU lines. For audio adapter accessory mode, these lines are used
for the microphone input and analog GND."
Mining rigs were using USB-C to transport PCIe x1 by the truckload. Because USB 3.0 cables are dirt cheap and are capable of transporting signals at PCIe x1 data rates.
I don't think anybody actually installs them on purpose. A lot of systems come with McAfee (Lenovo) or others pre-installed.
Interesting point, I've even has a Lenovo Legion and some ThinkBooks install McAfee autonomously after I installed Windows 11 Pro.
In enterprise environments it's a different story, McAfee and the like have similarly named products for the enterprise which actually do useful things for corporate security (like blocking unauthorized USB devices, blocking unauthorized software, reporting incidents to a central SOC system, etc.)
I do install them. This day only ClamAV I guess. I used (paid for) ESET Linux before they cancelled their Linux consumer line.
On the fence about trying Kaspersky AV Linux. Wouldn't install their suite on Windows though, last I looked at it hooked too many places, causing weird bugs and slowing everything down. Less bad than Comodo, which was able to bork Cygwin, but still.
This is something that frustrates me to no end. How are clothing item sizes not standardized yet?
For example, I recently went to buy new Jeans, so I went to the same store where I got my current Jeans, asked for a size 28, and tried it on. How is it possible that my size 28W Basic Straight Jeans from Fox fit me, while a pair that fits the exact same description is too small?
I later went to a different branch, and there I found another pair which fits the exact same description, and it did fit me!
I have encountered this type of thing inany places, like when buying shoes one of the employees at the store told me "We don't have this in size 42 in stock, but we do have 41 and our sizes are larger".
Imagine if you went to McMaster Carr and asked for an M3 screw, and being told "We are out of M3, but our M2.5 is larger so it should work for you"
reply