In practice "better UI" would mean things like being able to trivially share files and images, or quote/link a specific message, or even making it easier to distinguish between users with similar nicks via their profile pictures. And those UI improvements are actually features which are integral to its protocol, so they can't easily be bolted on by a custom IRC client in a backwards-compatible way.
Literally every single modern chat platform has support for stuff like that, and for a reason. Discord became popular because it combined those modern chat features with the ability for every community to create its own private little "server" - while at the same time making it trivial to participate in multiple "servers" at once.
Quoting/linking is a client feature, not a server one.
IRC servers do also support profiles.
I think the real “issue” with IRC is that its users generally prefer the minimal UI. So there isn’t an high enough demand to make prettier UIs. But there are web clients that are a little less basic.
For what it’s worth, I’m in that minimal camp too. I wish I could still connect Slack to IRC.
I'd guess the important feature for Discord is it is easier for the administrators to get hosted and online, but "you could create a client with a better UI than discord" is a terrible line of argument. People could do lots of things in the OSS world and they don't. I can't recall any IRC client that I have found as easy to use as the Discord client except - ironically given the topic - ChatZilla which died off years ago because Mozilla decided that extensions were more of a 2000s technology than something they wanted to support.
Email is OK. The point is that most conversations moved to other media (mainly chats) and so 90% of my mail is notifications, 9% is newsletters, 1% are real messages. They used to be 99%.
>It's not like you couldn't create an IRC-client with better UI than discord
No, you cannot. You cannot, because you need a team for this, and they need salaries, and unless you push ads into people's throats, there won't be any.
I find it somehow like a dystopia that things like these happen. This isn't about kids dying in some foreign country on some distant continent and we're investing in fancy robot taxis. This is actually that some people have the privilege of living in a bubble and using this technology that these huge corporations put money in (for the profit of their shareholders) while in the same time ignoring the core issues of the society that lead to such acts happening (stealing in broad daylight stuff from a car while people are inside it). I know people will say that this isn't for Google to fix (yeah, they only fix and lobby for laws that help them make more money) or for the tech people working for these companies and browsing these forums to fix, but I do find it a bit disgusting.
So you're implying that someone in a locked Waymo was assaulted at gunpoint from outside the vehicle? These are rolling surveillance machines (in a good way?) and virtually every aspect of this would be caught on probably a dozen cameras. I'd be surprised if this hypothetical scenario has ever happened, and if it has, I'd love to see the evidence.
I think people vastly overestimate the extent to which would be criminals think ahead to the likelihood of being caught and the severity of the punishment.
You're laying on enough qualifiers that even a recent robbery of a Waymo is precluded, because (if we really want to victim blame) their window was down which is asking for it.
But overall, not sure why the tone of these replies: then Venn diagram of "wants to rob people" and "cares Google's AV will record it" doesn't include as much overlap as you're implying.
A Waymo has even been used as a getaway vehicle a few times now, once even successfully
> Clients can also upgrade to the Excelsior package, which includes the standard service package plus complete health coverage, active passenger medical scanning, combat mode, and free corpse disposal in the event of the client's death.
And it was based on Debian. Installing an "app" was quite literally installing a deb package. Back in the day, I was working at a mobile software company and they had to call the IT guy (i.e. me) to explain how packaging works in Debian, just for the new Nokia they sent us, about a month before official launch. I tought the gadget was adorable.
This comment makes it sound like they sold private recordings to whomever was willing to pay for them, but they paid third parties to evaluate Siri recordings.
Don't really buy the economic argument. For 99% pf all workloads you need at least an order of magnitude more system memory than gpu memory.
Most systems barely need more gpu memory than what is required for video, browsing etc.
Just because we found a new usecase doesn't flip that on its head.
Besides, I want to keep doing what I'm doing today. So if I need 128GB today and my local AI needs 128 GB then I'd need 256 GB to keep doing the same work.
The argument rather seems to be that we shouldn't use such expensive memory on the GPU. Which might be true if you only want to do inference on it.
Get a 4U case, many options if you want to combine it with a NAS. Not hard to cool and keep somewhat quiet. If you can store it in a closet or something that helps too.
Well, you can use it for lots of other things as well.
Compared to the cloud you can probably save up to buy a new server every month. And don't underestimate the gains of having something to experiment on and play with.
When you search for a service you get the current status and you get the option to report a problem.
The minimal you expect from such a service is to keep track of how many % of users are searching also reports an error. There might of course still be errors but that alone surely can't be it. But please correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't have any proof but it sounds plausible; they also have an interactive button (does not require any login), so it could be that they rank the interactive event higher, but still count plain views as something. I'd say it's a fair indicator at least on a basic level.
reply