LAwLz

But they didn't publish the findings... They posted their interpretation of the findings. Those are two very different things. If you are referring to me as one of the "louder critics" then I am fairly sure you, wanderingfool and I all made the same point. Making the promise to begin with was stupid. But since they made the promise they should actually follow through with it. What they have delivered now is not what they promised.

I would like to see the actual report, not how the accused interprets the report and says that the allegations were "largely unfounded" (so not all of them were unfounded?). Also, just because a report made several years after doesn't find evidence for things doesn't mean it didn't happen. There were still plenty of red flags based on the things we saw. The leaked meeting about sexual allegations during which James made a joke about strippers. That it was Linus' wife that was HR for some time. The statement Linus made about how people should just talk it out between each other if someone had an issue. Stuff like that. Not a fan of the threat Linus added to the tweet either. Saying you have a very strong case to sue someone but you won't doesn't make you seem like the bigger man in my eyes. It makes you seem like a bully because the statement was made to create fear. Edit: I have now read some of the comments here and would like to add something. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Just because they couldn't find evidence for any wrongdoing doesn't mean no wrongdoing occurred. Let's say someone at LMG asked Madison if she wanted to suck their dick. Let's say they did that a few times. If no one was around to hear it (or they didn't think it was a big deal, or if the one who who heard disliked Madison), it would just be word against word. Just because there is no evidence of it happening doesn't mean it never happened. Just to be perfectly clear, this is not LMG releasing the report. This is not evidence of anything really, since we don't know what the report says. We just know what LMG decided to tell us. We don't know what they didn't tell us, we don't know if their retelling is accurate, nor do we know if they are even telling the truth. These are just words that hold as much water, in my opinion, as the statements made before the investigation was made. Don't interpret this tweet as evidence of anything, because it isn't. It's just words.

I mean, while a 4+4 core design trading punches with a 12-core design is impressive, realistically it doesn't matter. What matters is performance (both single-core and multicore) and efficiency at various target wattages. Well, that and possibly features as well (like NPU performance). Of course price too. As a consumer, if two processors perform the same, use the same wattage and have the same features at the same price, I don't really care if on paper one processor has 8 cores and the other one has 12 cores.

Is calling a product "AI" enough to make them "douchebags" in your eyes? If that's the case I think you have a really low bar.

Unnecessary "AI" branding or not, it seems like it will be pretty good. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the price will be like. Avoiding buying something just because you don't like some branding is in my eyes just as bad as buying something because of branding. Just buy whichever product is good.

It will be very interesting to finally see how these Snapdragon X Elite chips perform. Good to hear that the AI features that will use local compute (whichever they may be) will in the future run on Nvidia and AMD graphics cards as well. I wouldn't want them to be limited to Qualcomm based PCs if one that I find useful comes out.

This is actually quite common. When I make deals with network equipment manufacturers I get really high rebates. Maybe not 88% but right now I have a deal for some brand new, top of the line Nexus switches with over 70% rebate. In some cases I've seen even higher rebates. And yes, those deals are legitimate directly from Cisco. The markup on the list price for networking equipment is crazy high. Barely anyone pays even close to lift price. I am impressed by the amount of work that went into this scam. Both hardware and software modifications.

I've also found ChatGPT to be a lot better at translating than for example Google Translate, at least for Japanese which heavily relies on context. Google Translate handles context very poorly, while ChatGPT does it really well.

In an attempt to one-up and steal some thunder from Google IO that starts tomorrow, OpenAI has decided to hold an event today which they call their "OpenAI Spring Update". Rumors and speculation: You can watch the recorded event here: More info can be found on OpenAI's blog: Hello GPT-4o Introducing GPT-4o and more tools to ChatGPT free users Desktop version of ChatGPT (MacOS only, Windows version coming "later this year") This seems to mostly be an Electron app. Basically, it's like the browser version, but looks and feels slightly more native than running it in a browser. Edit: Never mind, it does have some additional features, such as having a shortcut to "copy" data into ChatGPT directly. So if you copy some code inside your IDE using a special keyboard shortcut, the code will be sent to ChatGPT and you can then ask it questions related to the code. The desktop app also has the vision capability, so you can share your entire screen to ChatGPT. It can see what you see. An update to the Web UI. Honestly, it doesn't look like much changed. A very minor update in my opinion: GPT-4o is the latest and best model from OpenAI - And it's free for everyone! The latest GPT model is called GPT-4o (four oh). The o stands for "omnimodel". It seems like GPT-4o will be about the same in terms of output quality as GPT-4 Turbo, but with a few extra benefits. Edit: Never mind, GPT-4o is also quite a bit better than GPT-4 Turbo. A while ago, a mysterious model appeared on the LMSys Arena website. As it turns out, the mysteriously named "gpt2" was GPT-4o. Here are the results for the "arena battle" that was conducted during that limited time: GPT-4o = 1310 points GPT-4 Turbo = 1253 points Gemini 1.5 Pro = 1249 points Claude 3 Opus = 1246 Image: For the more advanced prompts (like coding or things harder than just writing a response to "what's up"), the ELO lead becomes even larger: GPT-4o = 1369 points GPT-4 Turbo = 1269 points Claude 3 Opus = 1253 points Gemini 1.5 Pro = 1238 points Image: It seems like the custom GPTs that people publish will also become available to everyone now since you used to need GPT-4 for that before. The "memory" support is also available for free now. For those who don't know, the plus subscription lets you add information about you which gets saved and used in all conversations. For example if I added "I live in Sweden" to the memory, ChatGPT will know and remember that in all future chats. So if I say "what should I do during the summer", it will suggest things that are suitable to do for a Swedish person during the summer. If I tell it I like playing video games it will use that information in conversations. ChatGPT can also, for free now, analyze images and uploaded documents. These last few things I have mentioned is already available to plus subscribers, now it will now be available for free to everyone. Faster Reponses GPT-4o is faster than GPT4 Turbo. According to OpenAI, the new model is twice as fast at generating output. Better Voice Support With GPT-4o, OpenAI has upgraded its voice capabilities. It is way faster, so it start responding to your a lot quicker. You can interrupt it while it is speaking back and give it other commands, and it will interrupt itself and adapt to your new command. The generative voice has a much larger range of emotions and ways it can talk back to you. You can tell it to sound like a robot, sound emotional, and so on. The model can also interpret your emotions and will adapt its response base on that. Camera Support In the live demo, OpenAI took out a phone, turned on the camera, and then asked ChatGPT to help them understand how to solve a linear calculation step by step. ChatGPT analyzed the video feed from the camera and then gave voice directions on how to solve the equation step by step, like a math tutor. They also showed it a paper with the words "I ChatGPT" on it, and ChatGPT responded to it. GPT-4o API update OpenAI is updating its APIs. The GPT-4o API will be 2x faster than GPT-4 Turbo. It will be half the price of the GPT-4 Turbo API. It will have 5x higher rate limit compared to GPT-4 Turbo. Yes, that's right. OpenAI is cutting their prices in half once again. Why would You Subscribe to The Plus Plan Now? It seems like the biggest difference between the free and Plus version is that Plus subscribers will have 5x higher rate limit. What does this mean? We don't know yet. It might be that free users will be limited to for example 20 generated responses an hour, while Plus subscribers gets 100. The actual numbers remain to be seen.

The problem is that 90% of people who think they "do things properly", don't. They also lack the knowledge to even realize what they are doing wrong. I strongly disagree. I think it is foolish to say one is "more correctly and better operated" because it entirely depends on how you use it. It's like saying screwdrivers are better operated than hammers.

I didn't ignore anything. Yes, this mistake would be very difficult to make with self-hosting (and cloud hosting I might add, this has only happened once according to the article). My point was that if you are self-hosting you might avoid this risk and some others, but you also introduce other types of risks. Neither is a perfect solution and both have some strengths and weaknesses. "This solution has this issue so therefore we should never use it and instead use this" is the post that ignores issues, not mine. By the way, just to be 100% clear, I am not saying cloud solutions are better than on-prem. What I am saying is that both have strengths and weaknesses and saying one is shit is reductive and a very naive view of a very complicated topic. Which is why you should have a proper backup system in place, and that is true for both on-prem and cloud systems. Good thing that in this case, the pension fund did have proper backups. They had done their homework. Cloud services are a tool. A tool whose effectiveness largely depends on how it is utilized. From your experiences, it sounds like much of your concern/issues stems from the way cloud services are promoted and pushed by salespeople, potentially leading to suboptimal or inappropriate use. I think it is an important distinction because it points to problems with how the tool is sold and implemented, rather than issues with the tool itself. When used appropriately, cloud services can offer substantial benefits. The key lies in understanding the capabilities and limitations of cloud services and integrating them thoughtfully into an organization's overall IT strategy. This approach ensures that the cloud serves the organization’s needs effectively, rather than being led by for example Microsoft's salespeople's agenda. It’s crucial for decision-makers like your CIO to critically evaluate the advice and motivations of vendors to ensure that any adopted solutions actually align with their strategic objectives and operational requirements. By doing so, organizations can leverage cloud technologies in ways that truly benefit their operations and avoid potential pitfalls highlighted by experiences like yours. I often disagree with salespeople from various vendors. That is why I always insist on taking part in meetings when vendors want to talk to customers. Fortinet recently wanted to talk to a municipality I am a trusted advisor for and I told them, you are not allowed to talk to them without my presence. Because I know that what salespeople say might not align with what's best for the client. That doesn't mean I hate Fortinet and will say their products are shit. It just means I don't trust their salespeople to make the right choices for my client. I might be lucky to be in a situation where the higher-ups trust me and listen to my advice over the advice of salespeople from various vendors. I completely understand that things might go really poorly if the salespeople were allowed to say and sell anything they wanted to my clients. It seems like that's where most of your frustration stems from. I don't think that is grounds to completely reject and hate the tools being sold though.

My original reply about security vulnerabilities in on-prem systems was to highlight that no infrastructure, cloud or on-prem, is infallible. You're right that these vulnerabilities do not typically result in total system outages, they are indicative of a broader issue of management and maintenance that affects all types of IT infrastructure. The point of my post was to underscore that dismissing cloud solutions based on high-profile failures ignores the nuanced realities of both environments. Highlighting the vulnerable Exchange servers was meant to challenge the dismissive attitude toward cloud solutions when they fail, by pointing out that on-prem systems also face significant challenges. Those challenges might not be the same challenges as cloud service, but they exist nonetheless and should be factored in. Regarding the rarity of total data loss on-prem, while it's true that such events might be less common, they are not unheard of. On-prem systems can suffer from catastrophic failures due to natural disasters, physical damage, or severe human errors which might not be as recoverable as you suggest. In contrast, cloud providers often deploy extensive disaster recovery protocols across multiple geographically distributed data centers, enhancing potential resilience against such catastrophic events. That is not always feasible to do for an individual company, especially smaller ones. I both agree and disagree with this. I think it entirely depends on what infrastructure we are talking about. "The cloud" is more than just renting CPU and memory. It also has a lot of pre-packaged services like Office 365. If you are renting CPU, memory, storage and so on then a lot of the responsibility to configure it properly is on you as the system administrator, even though this message might not always be clear (because salespeople want to get you to buy their stuff and say everything is easier). If we are talking about the pre-packaged services however then I would argue that, while some of the responsibility is still on the sysadmin, the challenges are new and it is a new thing compared to what others had before on-prem. Office 365 is very different from hosting everything on-prem with a Skype server, Exchange server, and so on. I think it is worth mentioning that the company I work for sells Office 365 backup solutions as a service. So part of our work is educating customers about the exact thing you are describing as being lacking. That might be a reason why we have such different views on this, because I don't think (or didn't know) that this was an issue. We are also a Microsoft partner that sell Office 365 but we never let Microsoft talk to our customers alone. I work in networking and I never let companies like Cisco or Fortinet talk to the customers I am responsible for alone either, because I do not trust marketing people. I would always advise the people who make IT-related decisions to do due diligence and not solely rely on the promises from some vendor. While there have been instances of cloud providers failing to fully disclose risks, it’s should also be on the businesses to perform due diligence. The narrative that cloud providers are solely to blame does not fully account for the responsibility of businesses to critically assess and plan their infrastructure needs. Both providers and users share responsibility for the outcomes. My objection to the initial response I replied to was, as I said earlier, that dismissing cloud solutions based on high-profile failures ignores the nuanced realities of both environments. Each has its place and utility, and understanding both environments' strengths and weaknesses is essential for making informed IT decisions. And for disclosure purposes, the company I work for sell a lot of consulting time to do maintenance on on-prem solutions. So I don't think there is any conflict of interest here. We get paid regardless of how some customer decides to implement their infrastructure. In fact, we probably get paid more to help them host stuff on-prem.

You could always run namebench to see which DNS responds the fastest. But chances are it will be a rather miniscule difference, and DNS replies are cached anyway so the difference of a few milliseconds will only occur once when you access a new site (for the day). It's not like changing the DNS makes browsing around on websites faster.

It depends on what you are using it for. Do you use it as an xDSL modem? Do you have the Wi-Fi model? Do you use the VPN client? Would it be difficult to replace with something from another brand? You could get the replacement model from Draytek, or you could start looking into alternatives from for example Fortinet. It is possible than even a Ubiquiti dream machine could work, depending on the site and their needs.