• 16 Posts
  • 1.19K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle

  • HumanPenguin@feddit.uktoLinux@lemmy.mlAMD vs Nvidia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Blender supports cuda for much of its gpu work. It will work with amd. And there are projects allowing gpu rendering via amd. But they are (and have been for a while) a long way behind the cuda stuff.

    For major rendering projects nvidia is still the fastest set up to use.








  • Artificial merely implies manmade, as opposed to naturally developed IMO.

    Yeah but we do not use it for that anywhere else. Everywhere else we use artificial it is referring to something that dose not contain the original product. And implies something lesser.

    When talking about intelligence we use artificial in a unique way to describe something digital or created. And honestly. You better hope emotion is never a part of that creation.

    As for you definition of its how humans think. Sorry but you do not know that. It is the very hypothesis I was claiming you need to find a way to test.

    As I say we have lots of ideas / hypotheses on human and animal thought. Bot absolutely nothing that would move such into the relms of a theory. As of yet. We are not even sure how to test most of those hypothesis. All we do is measure neurons electrical and chemical transfer. We are a very very long way from tieing that to any process of original thought or generation of ideas.

    As I say. Id love it if you were proven correct. But ATM we don’t even know how to proove you or anyone else wrong on this subject.


  • Well yes. The UK government makes no claim of attempting to force religion or secularism onto children. But it dose and has for generation. Force parents to educate their children.

    As soon as you force education and remove the options for parents ensure that education meets their own religiose choices. You are forcing changes in those choices from parents to the government.

    I am an atheist or agnostic. Depending on how you ask me the question.

    But I sure as he’ll will never expect my government to force anyone to teach thidr own children using those views. But it is way more important to ensure those children have an education then to force parents to feel their children are interacting with people who feel differently. While I personally think children are better off interacting with multiple views then one. Forcing those with intolerance to those views to home school will never achive that. Other opertunities are a much better option.





  • I think you underestimate the hate.

    For the organisations that want to deny the ideals suggested. Using software under such a licence would lose them support. So when developers select such a licence. The software itself gets recognised as such. Meaning any shitty organisation using it gets labeled unacceptable to their very user base.

    So requiring the acceptance of these facts would have the same effect as anything else.



  • I think such a licence would need very careful wording. Wording that concentrates on the entity or organisation using rather then jurisdiction.

    GPL claims free as in speech not beer. Whereas this would be removing that very concept. By suggesting use for some ideas is not allowed.

    I can def see the advantage. Especially for people developing social software. But trying to form a licence like that. While not running fowl of existing GPL restrictions. Would take some seriose legal understanding. As making gpled current libraries incompatible. Could totally remove existing work to expand upon. Removing most developers desire to place the effort needed for the new software.

    Would be interesting to watch the project form though. Unfortunately it would be very much like watching a dangerous stunt. Facinating as much for the risk of failure as that of hoping for success.


  • Remember we saw these numbers in 2010.

    But no party below 30% can gain the seat count needed to force the larger parties. The 2 main parties would rather fight for FPTP then alliw smaller parties to gain equality.

    So as I said. Getting lib dems greens or reform to form the largets party is the only way a coalution would work.

    If all smallnparties agreed PR was the only way and a coalution before the election was agreed. Maybe. But that is not going to happen with the current 3rd parties.

    Now. If we (god not me we as no fickers gonna vote for me) but we as in those who think FPTP is over. Formed a party just to end fptp. And promised a new electoon as soon as it was removed. That may stand a chance of actually winning a majoroty.

    But (and its a big one) the 2 main party would center the fight on what happens if something big happens before that 2nd election.

    We would fight the whole election on fearnof every single issue the tories and labout can i vent to happe. I. The year or sonit would take to rebuild our democratic syseem.


  • Actually reform dosent. Thay have about 25%. And while that is the largest party.

    Normally 30+ is needed for a majority and even then. They are needed in the right place to gain MPs. With current numbers and distribution. Reform would likely lead to a weak tory coalition. Ie both parties only just haveing 50% of MPs. And reform would likey only have a few more then now.

    It may even lead to a lib dem major party coalition. Just because lib dems vots are more centralised onto certain constituancies.

    But lib dems recent history may mean while that os doable They refuse.

    This is one of the unique messesbof fptp numbers are less clear until yoy get into the 33% mark. Then the seat numbers start to grow rapidly.


  • you wouldn’t need a majority.

    That coalition would need a majority. That is the whole way the system works. And as no 3rd party coalition is going to gain 50% of MPs. That majority will require one of the bigger parties. This is the whole reason mathematically FPTP will always turn into a 2 party system. Game theory allows no other effective result.

    3rd parties will always split the vote allowing lower support opposition to gain power. Forcing opposition politics rather then a fight over actual ideas.

    Hence why the 2 big parties opposed the AV ref. Any change is a disadvantage to them.

    The only way we will ever change our political system. Is if a majority of voters consider doing so to be a higher priority then any other political issue. And vote for a party or coalition that has that as its main goal. Without that level of commitment. The 2 main parties will always find a way to split opposition and allow one of them to gain a majority of MPs.