Unbelievable. What would we do? Hand it over to a non-profit akin to the Linux Foundation so we can have a flourishing ecosystem of technologies sharing momentum while branching out into their own flavors and augmentations? All of that, for what! To serve a public good via most common piece of software used on a day to day basis? Madness!

I’m more of a dust man, myself. It runs recursively so it’s easy to pinpoint the culprit.

[Image source: the project’s README]

I’ve heard that a lot of custom domains get filtered by tech giants. Have you experienced any problems like that? I agree it would be nice and self hosting it is pretty straightforward.

Like?

This offers no features over the embedded calendar in the mail app. Not even widgets.

What is an option then?

https://alternativeto.net/software/diagramly/

Thanks for the note on Ditaa. I didn’t know it existed but I love the idea of rendering bitmaps from ASCII, especially on the web. It’s like Mermaid but the original syntax is a diagram in and of itself!

Like the author writes:

There is a number of formats that are text-based (html, docbook, LaTeX, programming language comments), but when rendered by other software (browsers, interpreters, the javadoc tool etc), they can contain images as part of their content. If ditaa was intergrated with those tools (and I’m planning to do the javadoc bit myself soon), then you would have readable/editable diagrams within the text format itself, something that would make things much easier. ditaa syntax can currently be embedded to HTML.

pysic

Right, for a paper physics problem. Try telling someone to multiply their hand by -1.

The only thing I don’t like about this is the implication of a left hand rule for left hand threads, which makes my E&M physics brain sad

Oh that’s so cool! Thanks for the link.

When you say you host it live on Codeberg, do you mean something akin to GitHub pages? I didn’t know that existed

I’m a big fan of buying power tools twice. I happen to go Ryobi for the first round but Harbor Freight / Northern Tool are probably similar.

If you can stand the fuss, buy corded tools and skip the brand loyalty that comes with batteries.

The biggest thing to watch out for is on bigger projects. There are plastic components in the drive train. They hold up great to short jobs, but heat is their kryptonite. If you let a Ryobi tool cool down whenever you notice it getting warm to the touch it’ll last a long time. If you need to run a tool for hours at a time then skip the fuss and go straight to a more brand with a good reputation like DeWalt, Makita, Bosch, or Milwaukee.

Red boxes fit all brands :)

assuming you mean *can’t

if cordless: batteries

else: brand cuckery

Well that’s odd!

Here you go:

Please don’t assume anything, it’s not healthy.

Explicitly stating assumptions is necessary for good communication. That’s why we do it in research. :)

it depends on the license of that binary

It doesn’t, actually. A binary alone, by definition, is not open source as the binary is the product of the source, much like a model is the product of training and refinement processes.

You can’t just automatically consider something open source

On this we agree :) which is why saying a model is open source or slapping a license on it doesn’t make it open source.

the main point is that you can put closed source license on a model trained from open source data

1. Actually the ability to legally produce closed source material depends heavily on how the data is licensed in that case
2. This is not the main point, at all. This discussion is regarding models that are released under an open source license. My argument is that they cannot be truly open source on their own.

Quite aggressive there friend. No need for that.

You have a point that intensive and costly training process plays a factor in the usefulness of a truly open source gigantic model. I’ll assume here that you’re referring to the likes of Llama3.1’s heavy variant or a similarly large LLM. Note that I wasn’t referring to gigantic LLMs specifically when referring to “models”. It is a very broad category.

However, that doesn’t change the definition of open source.

If I have an SDK to interact with a binary and “use it as [I] please” does that mean the binary is then open source because I can interact with it and integrate it into other systems and publish those if I wish? :)

Do you plan to sue the provider of your “open source” model? If so, would the goal be to force the provider to be in full compliance with the license (access to their source code and training set)? Would the goal be to force them to change the license to something they comply with?