Flydigi Vader 4 pro has that + 2 additional face buttons + adjustable tension on the sticks + hall effect joysticks + a toggle next to each trigger to reduce the travel distance + clicky mechanical switches.

And this same Steam beta version that added 8bitdo support also included support for this controller as well so that you can remap the extra buttons (but it’s only detected as a vader if you are using the included dongle and the controller is set to dinput mode).

The only thing I’m missing is capacitive joysticks that can be used for turning on/off the gyro… that’s a pity because I find the gyro kind of annoying to use without that.

If I remember correctly, Valve stated that for being “Steam certified” the controller needs to have capacitive joysticks to regulate the gyro, similar to the “Horipad” that they partnered to release.

I was hoping that 8bitdo would launch a controller that actually has this because it makes gyro much more viable, to the point that I really don’t like using gyro without that.

But this announcement is just to indicate explicit compatibility for steam input (which has been available in the beta for a while, btw). I don’t think this is a huge change since technically they were compatible before too… even if it was through the xinput / dinput interface without being recognized as 8bitdo.

The Free Software movement wasn’t really anti-commercial, they explicitly allow commercial purposes as part of the freedoms to protect, it’s part of the first freedoom they defend, “freedom zero”.

And it’s not like the open source movement wasn’t inherently political either… wanting more companies to join the movement is actually a political position.

But also, it’s not like the Free Software movement didn’t want to have more companies adopt their philosophy… they did want that, I mean that would have been awesome if it had happened. And when possible the FSF has actively tried to convince companies to get on board, they even have run programs to help companies promote themselves as certified by the FSF, such as the “Respects Your Freedom (RYF)” certification.

What makes the Free Software movement different is that they actively see proprietary software as evil. They see freedom as a right, something mandatory, not something to merely be “open” to. Going out of your way to not use closed source software, to the point of crippling yourself digitally if necessary, is then the ethically correct behavior. Whereas the “open source” movement sees it more as an option, something that can be useful but not strictly necessary, they wont consider it inherently bad/evil to use proprietary.

This is akin to someone considering buying ethically sourced shoes as something optional vs considering it a moral obligation so as to not be complicit to evil practices. Or say… saving energy being an option that might be convenient for you personally vs a moral obligation with the planet.

The business model at the time for most commercial projects was based on offering software as a product, not as a service, so they didn’t want to release their code. When eventually the shift towards services started to happen, companies gravitated towards the “open” side because it allowed them to take advantage of free software while retaining proprietary software for those situations in which it benefited them, without being flagged as “evil” by the same community they were working with.

It’s ironic how WebP lossless mode is actually better at compressing the image than the lossy mode.

I bet most people would use the default thinking that they are making a compromise and that increasing the quality would make the compression worse. They wouldn’t know unless they tested making the images themselves, because it’s not easy for users to differentiate lossy webp from lossless webp.

This imho is why lossless should be in its own format, instead of trying to make a single container format do everything like WebP was trying. A new compression level for PNG would be most welcome.

There are many philosophers of the mind that agree that intelligence and consciousness are separate things.

Some examples are Daniel Dennett and John Searle.

There are also currents of thought in philosophy of the mind that disagree that even things like “slime mold” are mindless. Both from the materialist direction (like panpsychysm) and from the idealist direction (Bernardo Kastrup’s idealism).

Most philosophers of the mind would disagree that the reason for their field to exist really has anything to do with any specific terminology / position. I’d say it has more to do with curiosity and the interest for seeking truth. Like most fields of philosophy do.

Your definition of intelligence, which is what the AI companies use, has made people more confused than ever about “intelligence” and only serves the interests of the companies for generating hype and attracting investor cash.

I’d argue it’s your definition, which includes consciousness, what makes AI an attractive term for investors. Precisely because you say intelligence include awareness and it can lead to people to misinterpret AI as self-aware.

Promoting your definition helps the interests of the companies who want to generate hype, and causes just as much confusion as you attribute to mine in that regard.

At least mine is simpler and makes it easier to invalidate the hype, since if intelligence isn’t awareness then AI isn’t awareness. Many philosophers have agreed with that, for years, before LLMs were a thing. John Searle for example is famous for the Chinese room experiment.

Why is it a problem?

Generally, I’d say having clear, specific and useful definitions is a good thing to help communicate and understand what we are talking about and avoid misinterpretations.

What is the reason you think philosophy of the mind exists as a field of study?

Playnite

Interesting. Does it support gamepad input? I wonder how does it compare with things like Heroic Games launcher?

Then I think we had a different understanding. My understanding was something akin to what bluesky does with the PDS, the data service just hosts data and hands it over to the other service which is the one actually doing the indexing of that data and aggregating it into communities. The data of the community might be hosted in the hosting services, but it’s accessed, indexed and aggregated through the authentication service.

The access management, the accounts, the distribution of data, etc. that’s still in the server managing the federation. That’s the way I understood it, at least (I’m not the person that originally started this train, that was @[email protected] ).

This allows the content to potentially not be completely lost if an instance dies because it would be easier to carry your data to another instance without losing it. It’s the same principle as in bluesky but applied to the fediverse.

it is more interesting to have users to build a local community than just being a storage server.

Imho, it comes down to how much you care about the content of the community you are building. The reason I’m in lemmy.ml and not some smaller instance is because of problems like the ones showcased here.

If I could self-host my own content I would not mind being somewhere else. In fact, I’m considering setting up something through brid.gy. The fact that there isn’t a separation of the hosting means that if I want to secure my content I need to have my own 1-person instance which is not something the protocol is very well suited for. Plus it’s likely most lemmy instances would not federate with it anyway since, understandably, they may prefer an allowlist approach rather than blocklist. The only sane way would be to have the instances have full control of the access as they are now, with storage being in a separate service that can be managed separately, the hosting service.

it is currently recommended to mod from local accounts

Would this change at all if there was a hosting service?

I expect you would still be recommended to mod from local accounts (the “authenticator”), even if the content hosting was a separate service. The local account would continue being the primary source of access to the content… note that having a separate hosting service doesn’t mean that the hosting service must be the one managing access to the content from the fediverse.

Hosting involves removal of content

Exactly. That means instances would not longer have that responsibility. That would be on the hosting service, meaning less pressure for the instance. Once they ban the user, the content would not be shown, it would be purged from the federating network of that instance, regardless of whether the hosting service actually deletes it or not (but I expect it would be better if the protocol makes it so banning a user sends a notification to the hosting service).

At the moment, if a Lemmy.world user spams CSAM content everywhere, other admins can reach out to the LW admins, they ban the users and purge the content.

It’s more complex than that, at the moment, because the purge also involves mirrored content in other federating instances. The interesting part is that after it’s triggered, then the process is pretty much automatic. When purging, Lemmy.world admins don’t have to manually go around asking to all the other instances to delete the content. The purge request is currently being notified automatically to instances federating with it. Why would it be any different for a content hosting service?

Since he said that the authenticator is the one that handles the communication & access, I expect banning the person from the authenticator would already automatically prevent anyone using that authenticator (or any other authenticator federating with it) from seeing the content.

As I understand it, the only thing the content provider would do is hosting the data. But access to that data would be determined by the service doing the access control, in the same way current instances are doing it.

I don’t know, I feel it’s actually the opposite. Awareness is something you can only experience subjectively, it’s “qualia”, a quality that you cannot measure outside of yourself or detect externally. There’s a reason IQ (“intelligence” quotient) tests use puzzles/problems and don’t test conscious awareness. Most of the time in science intelligence is defined as problem solving and capacity to adapt/extrapolate because that definition makes it observable and more scientifically useful.

If it were to include awareness then we can’t in good faith answer the question: “is it intelligent?” …we can only say we don’t know. This is the main struggle of philosophy of the mind, what is often called “the hard problem of consciousness”. Empirical analysis would not show if something is having (or not) the conscious experience of being aware.

Yes, that’s what I meant 2 comments above by “fungus” (though to be fair, whether slime molds are fungi depends on your definition, they used to be classified as one, before “protist kingdom” was made up to mix protozoa, algae & molds, but I keep preferring the traditional autotroph / absorptive heterotroph / digestive heterotroph division).

I also mentioned ants who can find the optimal path by simply following scents left by other ants without understanding how this helps with that.

You can be intelligent without being aware of your intelligence, or you can be stupid without being aware of your stupidity… like how humans are actually creating problems for themselves in many cases.

Intelligence != awareness

Yes there there as many types of intelligence as there are types of problems. Emotional intelligence deals with emotional problems, social intelligence deals with social problems. This doesn’t conflict with my definition, it’s still problem solving.

Just because a being is intelligent does not mean it can solve all the problems of all kinds, it would require general intelligence, and even a generally intelligent being needs the right training… if you are trained wrong or trained for a different kind of problem that does not fit the current one then your current experience might actually get in the way, as you point out.

They’re no more intelligent than an AC/DC converter

The problem is in the definition of intelligence.

To me, intelligence is simply problem-solving ability. It does not necessarily imply consciousness, having self-awareness or anything like that. A simple calculator is already displaying intelligence, even if limited to a very narrow situational set of problems, in the sense that it can resolve mathematical questions.

That doesn’t mean the calculator is self aware… it just means it can resolve problems. Biological systems can also resolve problems without necessarily being aware of what they are doing… does the fungus actually knows it’s solving a maze the scientists prepared for it when it just expands following what is preprogrammed by its biological instincts determined by natural selection? Do the ants really know what they are doing when they find the shortest path just by instinctively following a scent of pheromones left by other ants?

Knowing exactly what causes consciousness is an entirely different problem… and it’s one that has not been resolved by any scientist or philosopher in a satisfactory manner. So we simply do not know that.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood completely, I didn’t read it right. For some reason I thought you were talking about the router / wifi service being SOWPL.

HDR and EXIF are great changes… APNG, if already being used for some apps/services, seems a logic choice. Maybe it’ll finally mean the end of gifs once and for all?

What I’m more excited for though, is the improvements in compression that the article hints that are being worked on. Specially if it can beat other more modern formats that have added lossless compression like jpegxl. I feel it’s best to have separate formats for lossless and lossy, to prevent the off-chance of lossyness getting through.

IANAL, but I feel that coffee shop case would not be different if the software were under AGPL… if you are providing a service to other people, even if “the other people” are the customers to your shop, it could be argued that under the terms of the AGPL (not to be confused with GPL) they should have the right to see the source of the service that they are making use of.

But if the SOWPL requirement really does apply to private code that isn’t providing service to others, the implication would be that even if you are the only user (no coffee shop customer), and even if you are the only one who knows about it, you would still need to make the source code public in some way… which I feel this is very impractical and probably unenforceable anyway.

Even if you did block it, the fact that you blocked it is also trackable… so it might actually single you out even more, and it’ll still allow them to fingerprint your browser (you can test your fingerprint here).

It might make more sense to randomize / spoof the data so that it becomes inconsistent and useless so that you aren’t identifiable.

alias lt='ls -t | less'

Good idea! I’ll steal that but I would rather be able to give a directory path as parameter (and show in colors, and don’t pause if less than 1 page of content, and support the scrolwheel), also piping ls forces it to be 1 single column so might as well show more details, personally I’m gonna use this instead:

lt() { ls -t --color=always -Fgoh "$@" | less -RF --mouse; }