When did this change? AIUI creators got a larger cut of YouTube premium views compared to ad share.
FLOSS virtualization hacker, occasional brewer
When did this change? AIUI creators got a larger cut of YouTube premium views compared to ad share.
Erm…yes? There is obviously a rush to integrate the latest generative AI tools in everything without thinking about the consequences of it’s failure modes.
Isn’t the GPU documented now?
https://docs.broadcom.com/doc/12358545
There are reverse engineered docs as well: https://github.com/hermanhermitage/videocoreiv
From the UK perspective broadcasters have a license to broadcast and are regulated by ofcomm. I thought the FCC had similar oversight of the US broadcasters - for example not being keen on swearing and sex on TV. For UK news programmes there is a requirement to be balanced for example.
I think one difference is Google is a pull system: you query Google and get results. The short form video streams are push mediums. They feed you a stream of content that it thinks you want. They are fundamentally more susceptible to pushing a particular agenda.
The evidence from the reports in the above article certainly looks pretty daming that tiktok is pushing a particular agenda. The comparison to broadcast which often does have licensing requirements is probably apt.
I don’t buy the arguement that this gives cover to repressive regimes to censor more views because frankly they are doing that already.
The man is a legend although I guess he has done prior experience with codecs through ffmpeg.
Yes it does. You can derive the domain from snooping DNS lookups but the URL is part of the encrypted get header.
An interesting piece but isn’t this what VC investors do, not every play will result in a unicorn and those that do pay for the losses of those that don’t. I expect more than a few billion will evaporate into vapourware as we crest this wave of generative ai hype.
I have not, but I will now thanks.
Yes training is the most expensive but it’s still an additional trillion or so floating point operations per generated token of output. That’s not nothing computationally.
It’s about time. I know there was a desire to avoid over regulating the burgeoning internet economy but we reached the era of monopolies a while ago now.
I’m looking at Embassy too for a Pico project and combining it with a nostd mqtt implementation. However I need to understand Futures and if/how they relate to the async paradigm.
So I may be biased but what is vmwares USP? From my limited experience it was a slightly more polished GUI for creating VMs and the ability to run on older pre-virt hardware. Is the experience still objectively better than the alternatives?
I certainly agree with a lot of that analysis. I also worry how signal continue to fund their app sustainably without compromising their users.
It’s well worth reading the longer newsletter the above link quotes: https://www.wheresyoured.at/sam-altman-fried/
I kinda agree we are probably cresting the peak of the hype cycle right now.
What’s wrong with the software? They are client web devices and with crostini you can develop at a pinch. But they aren’t meant to be laptop/desktop replacement.
It looks like a lot of mappings need adding as most people come up as unknown:
EDIT updated with newer mappings.
Top changeset contributors by employer
(Unknown) 11190 (62.7%)
(None) 4280 (24.0%)
Huawei 862 (4.8%)
Ferrous Systems 630 (3.5%)
Academics (various) 563 (3.2%)
Red Hat 124 (0.7%)
Google 102 (0.6%)
Microsoft 59 (0.3%)
IBM 28 (0.2%)
Funky 11 (0.1%)
Top lines changed by employer
(Unknown) 1018418 (56.9%)
(None) 484385 (27.0%)
Academics (various) 118247 (6.6%)
Ferrous Systems 100533 (5.6%)
Huawei 45443 (2.5%)
Red Hat 16009 (0.9%)
Microsoft 3359 (0.2%)
Google 2844 (0.2%)
Funky 447 (0.0%)
IBM 388 (0.0%)
the top contributors over the last year were:
Developers with the most changesets
Michael Goulet 1027 (5.7%)
Nicholas Nethercote 789 (4.4%)
Ralf Jung 763 (4.3%)
Camille Gillot 727 (4.1%)
Lukas Wirth 640 (3.6%)
Guillaume Gomez 583 (3.3%)
bjorn3 550 (3.1%)
Oliver Scherer 470 (2.6%)
Michael Howell 293 (1.6%)
Waffle Lapkin 266 (1.5%)
Esteban Küber 251 (1.4%)
Zalathar 249 (1.4%)
lcnr 247 (1.4%)
y21 221 (1.2%)
Jynn Nelson 188 (1.1%)
Urgau 187 (1.0%)
Nilstrieb 170 (1.0%)
Centri3 169 (0.9%)
hamidreza kalbasi 164 (0.9%)
Pietro Albini 156 (0.9%)
Developers with the most changed lines
Laurențiu Nicola 163716 (9.1%)
Philipp Krones 118974 (6.6%)
Lukas Wirth 100948 (5.6%)
Camille Gillot 94829 (5.3%)
Oleksandr Babak 89625 (5.0%)
Michael Goulet 83965 (4.7%)
Oliver Scherer 39890 (2.2%)
Nicholas Nethercote 39484 (2.2%)
Ralf Jung 38113 (2.1%)
hamidreza kalbasi 34576 (1.9%)
Ben Kimock 33647 (1.9%)
Guillaume Gomez 30774 (1.7%)
bjorn3 29218 (1.6%)
Zalathar 26214 (1.5%)
Esteban Küber 24612 (1.4%)
Alex Macleod 23724 (1.3%)
y21 20447 (1.1%)
Centri3 20168 (1.1%)
Urgau 19964 (1.1%)
Michael Howell 19795 (1.1%)
Sorry yes this was GCC, I can do the same for the rust repo if you want.
They won’t directly support it because in their view the Google Play process is a more secure way of verifying they supplied the binaries than is possible of f-droid. If reproducible builds were possible maybe there could be some mechanism to verify a given binary is built from a given commit of the source tree.