MakeHuman comes with a pretty sophisticated rig that has all the constraints set up to make fairly realistic poses and animations.

That's another thing to consider, that it might be for AI video training.. Though I'm not sure how useful it is for that purpose, given the extremely limited amount of movement, and how unusual the movement is as far as how often we move our fingers exactly like that.

Fair. I don't know the limitations, it was something I read about a few years ago. Though to be clear, at least from what I remember, it was less about the skin and more about the blood flowing in the veins/arteries under the skin; the skin already acted as a barrier that made it harder (but still possible) to detect. Maybe I misunderstood though?

At any rate, it could be that the verification code only looks at the hand gestures, but they keep the video data around to process later for building up the biometric database. Given people have had success with 3D models, I'm tempted to fire up Blender and use MakeHuman to make the gestures. Only problem is that might get me flagged as not being human later. Same for gloves, really.. Hm.

Really though, I don't have Twitter installed on my phone, and that's the main hurdle. I'm running out of storage and Twitter's actually a bit too large.. I'll have to go through and delete a bunch of stoofs just to install the damn app.

Given that it's possible to tell heart rate through low resolution low framerate CCTV video, I'm willing to bet that biometric data CAN be collected through a glove, unless it's a very thick glove that blocks all light.

Sometimes drivers are incompatibly licensed, and that's why they require DKMS. That's not something you can just upstream to the kernel. Or, the driver might be written in a way that violates the kernel's coding standards, and thus will always be rejected by kernel maintainers until it's practically rewritten almost from scratch.

Another thing that's worth noting, is that as you use higher and higher sized models, repetition penalty needs to be turned down lower and lower. It's almost like the AI starts to panic and refuses to use any words you've already used (within the repetition penalty range).

With 24B models and higher, I simply turn it off. I think with 8B models it's recommended to have it at 1.1 or something like that, and for 15B models I tend to see 1.05 or so? It varies a lot, but I remember a lot of models tending to not even list it at all and instead just listing a min_p value instead (which also tends to go lower the higher the model size).

What model are you selecting when using Horde? Usually I have to make sure only one AI model is selected, and then I look up that model and find out what its preferred generation parameters are and change things to match.

It's worth noting that a LOT of the more modern models are actually designed for 'Instruct' mode, even if they basically implement it similarly to 'Chat' mode. For example, models that are optimized for the 'Vicuna' instruction format literally have no 'end instruction' tags, and have the 'start' tags for the user and AI set to "\nUSER: " and "\nASSISTANT: ", respectively. Basically 'Chat' mode if the two people talking were called 'USER' and 'ASSISTANT'.

But yeah, overall your best bet is to look into what model you're using, and find out what that model expects you to do. If it's expecting a specific format and not seeing it, that's when it'll start generating garbage; or if it generates an ending token but Kobold isn't set up to interpret that as an ending token, it'll start generating garbage after that. Note that some ending tokens are invisible.

Do the black rectangles on walls that go away when up close when using a flashlight happen on Windows as well? That's one that I can confirm has always been an issue for me, but I don't see it in gameplay footage on Youtube, but Youtubers also never stop and specifically try to cause or look at such bugs so if it does happen it might just be for a few frames.

The black patches with the lighting stuff is normal for Subnautica. I don't know why it happens, or if it's Linux/Proton-only, but I do know it happens with both DXVK and with WineD3D. (Edit: for the rest of the glitches, those are NOT normal and I've never seen them before.)

That said, maybe try to run the game with WineD3D instead of DXVK. You can do that by going into the game's properties, and at the bottom of the 'general' tab is a text field for launch options that you set to PROTON_USE_WINED3D=1 %command%.

For some reason, at least with Proton 10, this also makes the game have a LOT of color banding.. So I also recommend you turn on 'Dithering' within Subnautica itself; that setting is found at the bottom of the 'Graphics' options window.

Ok boomer.

You want to go ahead and quote the part of my reply where I explain that they don't grasp how weird it is to compare objects to genitals for no reason? No? Just going to leave it at the fact they want to claim not being in it for an argument and leave out the fact they needlessly turned it into one when they could have just as easily never started an argument in the first place? A token claim of "It's not something that needs to be an argument" rings hollow from the person who started the argument. And the only reason for the "it doesn't need to be an argument" was because they knew they didn't really have any reasoning for why they were arguing that.

Counterpoint: why do you believe it IS weird to compare objects and genitals? Mind you that I agree with you on this point, because I've always considered it weird. However, you have not once shared WHY it is weird - just insisted that it is. Just like he has never said why it isn't, just said it isn't.

The difference between the two of you is that he carefully worded every post to ensure that phrases like, "I think," "To me," and so on are always associated with the opinion stated. This unambiguously labels each and every instance of believing it isn't weird, to be directly connected to his specific understanding of the words.

You, on the other hand, have not been so careful. Here's a direct quote from your very first reply to his very first post:

Or in other words, it's reducing "male" to being a protrusion and "female" to being a hole. That is weird.

You don't leave room for it being your personal opinion. You state it as an objective fact, without anything resembling a logical reason to back you up. And sure, I know of many logical reasons to say that, but you never gave one.

"I don't think it's weird," was fine on its own. Clarifying that they see it as useful for word association is fine. But they're trying to pretend that the terms don't have an association with people and are trying to pretend that it's just things that are that... and that's dishonest. And when I point out how the association of "male" and "female" for this analogy isn't all there is but that other terms also get it, they have the ability to acknowledge it's weird for the other terms but keep a cognitive dissonance as it relates to the initial terminology despite the reasoning being consistent. They made it an argument then wanted to claim "it's not an argument" the moment they were shown they didn't think their position through. All I did was point out why their position was not thought through. Nothing more.

They're not trying to pretend anything. They're describing how they think of the terms, nothing more and nothing less. You're the one that's coming up with additional things that they're supposedly saying, without being able to back up the claim in any way, shape or form... Because they never said the things you claim they're saying.

To be honest, they do come across as being somewhat defensive. But despite that, they still made sure to word their posts in a way that removed ambiguity about what they were talking about: the personal way that their brain associates and models how the words in question are used.

Meanwhile, you don't extend the same courtesy. You blatantly claim those uses for the word IS weird without question, and without any qualifiers.

Now, personally, I believe that you are being honest in these later posts and that you genuinely intended your posts to always be about your personal opinion on how the words are used. But that's because I can very much understand the feeling of being misunderstood, and frustratedly trying to explain after the fact what was meant, and regretting being fast and loose with word choice.

I can empathize with that, and assume you're going through that. That's why I didn't bother mentioning until now that all of your posts read like you're the one starting the argument.

Now, as far as your claim about:

But they're trying to pretend that the terms don't have an association with people and are trying to pretend that it's just things that are that...

There are plenty of traits that are in common to both inanimate objects and people. For example, some inanimate objects are the same weight as some people. Some are the same height as some people. Some are the same shape as some people are.

Just because a trait can be used to describe both a person, and an inanimate object, doesn't mean that using that trait to describe a person reduces the person down to the status of a physical object.

If that were the case, then telling someone their height would be degrading as if telling them they're nothing more than a tape measure. Since telling someone their height is obviously not the same as degrading them down to merely a tape measure, then obviously a trait being used to describe both an inanimate object and a person does not alone mean that the trait in question should only be applied to people. That is nonsensical.

And when I point out how the association of "male" and "female" for this analogy isn't all there is but that other terms also get it, they have the ability to acknowledge it's weird for the other terms but keep a cognitive dissonance as it relates to the initial terminology despite the reasoning being consistent.

They gave their own reason for agreeing with you on the word 'genderless' that had no relation to any argument you had presented. Their reason for agreeing with you on the word 'hermaphroditic' was not given, but they did state they had multiple reasons to agree with you on it, and it's reasonable to assume that at least one of those reasons will be different from any reason you have.

This is because their reasons for finding a word weird or not entirely had to do with how they personally categorized and thought of those words, and in no way were they ever trying to refute your own personal categorization and thoughts about those words. As far as I can tell, the idea that they were was entirely made up in your head, and you never thought to look back at their posts to try to prove yourself wrong about your own assumptions.

I know that's how most people are, so I can't exactly blame you specifically for that. Most people rarely, if ever, try to prove themselves wrong about things. But it's exactly that sort of tactic on your side that could have prevented a heated argument.

On his side, I again refer to how you frequently stated things concretely, without reservation or qualification. Stating it is weird instead of stating that you personally consider it weird. That is something Rednax consistently did, that you rarely did. It is reasonable for him to conclude that you were saying he was objectively wrong, while his carefully unambiguous word choice makes it unreasonable for you to conclude the same thing about him.

If you had been unambiguous in your word choice consistently like they had been, I would chalk it up as you both misunderstanding each other and be much more sympathetic toward you about this. I'd also be talking with him and explaining your side to him to make sure there was mutual understanding.

But no, he understands what you mean all too well, and like I had said, the two of you almost entirely agree except for minor details about how the two of you categorize those words in your heads, and that's just silly to get so worked up over.

Sure, the categorization in his head makes it not seem inherently weird to him, but the categorization in your head makes it inherently weird to you. But that's a side effect of those categorizations, not a disagreement.

Meanwhile, when I was a kid and first heard 'male' and 'female' used to describe plugs and sockets, it was shortly after I had first started encountering, shall we say, 'the birds and the bees' on none other than the Internet. Keeping such forbidden knowledge secret from others was at the forefront of my mind, and for it to be used so blatantly to describe electronic connectors felt like a violation of that secrecy.

Also, I'm not going to say nor suggest you're lying about having talked to Rednax, because you may have private messaged them and therefore it wouldn't be present here. But I will say it feels strange that you'd reply to me here then PM them instead of communicating with individuals in a consistent manner. It also makes it impossible for me to verify the veracity of what you're claiming, so I can't actually take "I talked to them and they said this is what they were doing," with any legitimacy because you could say anything and I can't actually verify that.

Oh come on. I wasn't talking to him on Reddit at all, and I would have no idea this argument happened if not for him linking me to it and asking me for my opinion.

We trust each other. Sometimes when one of us is frustrated with a public conversation online, we'll give a link to it to the other and ask their opinion. Sometimes I feel like he's in the wrong, sometimes I feel like he's in the right, sometimes I feel like there was a HUGE misunderstanding between everyone, and sometimes I feel like both sides are wrong, or even that both sides are right.

And likewise, sometimes he thinks I'm wrong, sometimes he thinks I'm right, and so on and so forth.

That said, I know why you might think that; after all, I did say that in one case I asked him if I understood him correctly after replying to you. The explanation for that is simple: I forgot to ask for clarification before posting, and so he simply read my reply to you and then told me I was correct, along with a further clarification that actually meant I was still slightly wrong in my internal mental model for that part of his post's meaning. My post had been correct and wouldn't need changing, but I did incorporate the corrected information into my prior response to you.

And wow, basically out of space to add anything more to this post.

Not everything has to be agreement nor "agree to disagree". That is just how life is sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that.

I agree there, and so do they, as per their own comment:

We don't have to keep arguing until someone "wins". You started with "I think it's weird" and I offered "I don't think it's weird" and that was all fine and good until you responded with "It absolutely is" which tries to invalidate one of the sides.

---

I'll be honest, I'm a friend of theirs, and this conversation was bothering them and making them shut down. They didn't ask me to reply to you or anything, but I was hoping to smooth things over because you both seemed to be mostly agreeing, disagreeing on one small detail, and you misinterpreting that disagreement to be something it wasn't.

Personally, I don't see the point in being willing to explain further to one person, but not someone else. My brain wants to explain things further to everyone, to a fault; I tend to over-explain myself to people for no reason and no benefit, and it can lead to sharing waayy too much information. Being able to be selective in who that information gets directed to is one of the things I like about Rednax, because I wish I could be a bit more like that.

But the truth is that he did explain himself further to me, though occasionally only because I had already interpreted his posts and wanted confirmation I had it right. In one case after I had already responded to you, to be honest.

And the truth is also that, as someone who's gut reaction to the topic itself is to agree with you completely, it's a bit offensive to me that you would claim that a contrary opinion grounded on someone's own personal categorization of words is somehow an attempt to unfairly say you're 'wrong'.

Nowhere in any of his statements did he say that you were wrong. That one sentence of that one post I bolded previously was the closest thing to him ever saying that, and even then it was in reality a confirmation of what you were saying about him. He was saying you were correct in what his mental model was.

That's why I've responded and am trying to explain things. It's a combination of my brain having an itch to explain things to everyone, feeling bad for Rednax shutting down over this, and how your method of expressing a viewpoint I would actually tend to agree with makes said viewpoint look worse than it really is.

As a side note.. For me personally, the first time I heard of 'male' and 'female' being used to describe plugs and sockets, I was a little kid and I thought the terms were weird. I've since then always avoided using 'male' and 'female' to describe plugs and sockets, except in a few cases where I was making actual sex jokes about anthropomorphized electronics.

So my gut instincts tell me you're 100% right about it being weird, because that's been my default opinion for the vast majority of my life, to the point that I feel uncomfortable using the terms in that way.

However, I'm in the habit of double-checking my emotions and why I think about things, and even before reading this exchange I've waffled back and forth on the topic considerably. There are really strong arguments and merits on both sides; for both accepting and normalizing these terms for electronic connectors, and for shunning them in favor of less ambiguous terminology.

So... I'm on the fence. Do we favor a general increase in comfort for sexual terminology in society at large, to help combat the general sex negative undertones that are often used to attack LGBTQ+ people? Or do we try to combat defining gender strictly by genitals without consideration of personal identity?

If it wasn't so taboo to even mention what penises ARE, would I have been uncomfortable with the terms being used for plugs and sockets when I was a kid? I don't know. When I was a kid, I didn't even know what my penis technically WAS, I thought boys and girls were 100% identical when kids, and the first time I heard about differences between boys and girls, the person had said something like girls having something like an extra bellybutton. I don't even remember who said that. And thinking back, I think I remember explicitly being confused about them saying that one gender has a bellybutton and the other doesn't, and knowing that wasn't true.

Maybe even if 'male' plugs and 'female' sockets had been described to me much earlier and I knew the terms described one thing going into another thing, and that was it, I wouldn't have gotten a confusingly wrong description of the differences between boys and girls when I was a kid, AND I wouldn't have felt the terms were weird later on when I did first hear about those terms being used for electronics.

I've heard that a common problem with modern sex education in right-wing states is that they don't define anatomical terminology to younger kids, and as a result kids who are abused sexually lack the vocabulary to describe what was done to them. I sure as hell know that if that'd happened to me, I'd have had no clue how to tell anyone. Anecdotal, but the things I've read on the topic seem to back me up on that.

---

So yeah. I'm undecided because I mostly default to completely agreeing with you, but am aware of good, solid arguments for why one might disagree with you.

Completely unrelated to the actual argument though, because the actual argument was about how their brain thinks about the words, and not about any inherent properties of the words themselves.

I'm confused, because to me it looks like they did explain why. It's not a terribly satisfying answer, but at least how I'm reading it, that's just how their brain categorizes the words. That's what the sentence I'd bolded was saying, in fact: it's clarifying that, for them and how their brain thinks of these things, the reduction to objects/genitals is correct and factual.

Why? Because their brain thinks it is. And because their brain thinks it is, there's no weirdness at all to using the terms in what their brain considers the correct way to use them. Lack of conflict in how they're used means lack of weirdness.

Mind you, this isn't how I see any of this. I just don't like how you're claiming that they're trying to definitively say you're wrong, when everything in all of their posts is centered around why they don't personally feel like the terms are weird, because of the specific way their mind categorizes the words.

It's not even a thing to argue for or against. How their brain works is how their brain works; it's an observation, not an opinion to debate.

The merits of whether or not their mental categorization is a good way to categorize the words in general for other people would be a good debate, but that isn't the debate they were having. They were just saying that their brain doesn't see a conflict between how the words are used and what they mean, because of how their brain categorizes the words, and that means that, to them, it's not weird.

I think I see where you might have picked up on the idea they were 'trying to prove you wrong', but I don't think that's what they were doing.

The only time they seemed to definitively say one opinion or another was right, was when they said the part of this sentence that I've put in bold:

To me these should be words for objects, and for genitals, not for people. The reducing is correct.

However, I think a reasonable alternative reading of the entire thing is that the bold part is just a side clarification of the previous sentence, which means that the 'To me' at its start also applies to the sentence I put in bold.

They aren't saying you're wrong; they're saying that in their opinion, in certain contexts, it's not "necessarily weird". That's how they put it in their initial post, that it wasn't necessarily weird. Can it be made weird? Probably! But it doesn't seem necessarily weird, to them specifically, in at least some contexts.

Those are the wrong type of double quotes for bash. Also, you don't need a semicolon at the end for bash.

It seems like it was removed. What did it say?

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen? Almost none. There are lots of things in Powdertoy that, when broken or burnt, all turn into the same thing regardless of what they originally were. There doesn't seem to be any real chemistry going on, though maayybe some real-ish physics? Like, maayybe the way Uranium and protons interact is realistic?

But you've also got fictional materials like vibranium in there.

Basically... I wouldn't get your hopes up. It's pretty much purely for fun.

Please explain why you believe otherwise.

Did you not read my post? Milk is not a shelf stable food, and is the example I use.

/u/ThomasterXXL, Looking again... Those comments of yours were deleted by the moderators of that subreddit, so they only show up in your profile.

It's not clear what exactly you were replying to, or how people were replying to you. There's a lot of missing comments. The only surrounding comments left don't seem to be really disagreeing with you, at worst passively thinking what you're saying isn't quite relevant, or is simply obvious.

Oh. I see. I didn't look at the top-level comment in that thread until now. They're all being transphobic and you're literally just providing alternative explanations for the observations they make, namely the observation that LGBTQ+ people have elevated suicide rates.

What the FUCK is wrong with the moderators of that subreddit?!

And one of your comments in there is admitting that you have an issue with arguing in bad faith sometimes. You're introspective about that and already knew that and knew it was a problem before I even pointed it out.

Pointing out problems by berating people doesn't help when they already know about the problem.. It just punishes them further from being introspective.

Seriously, I genuinely feel shitty now. You did NOT deserve those downvotes, or your comments being removed, and I want you to know that it is a very good thing that you are as introspective about this as you are. I respect you immensely for that.

I wanted to know how likely it was you were a troll, and looked through your recent comments..

I am convinced you are NOT a troll. In fact, I think you probably were just having a bad day or something and just didn't feel like putting more effort into arguing, which is understandable, and I'd like to apologize for the tone of my previous reply.

What really got me though.. I saw you say some opinions I strongly agree with, and those comments of yours with those opinions were being heavily downvoted. That.. Got me pretty mad.

I didn't read the full context, so maybe there's some more legitimate reason for people to downvote you, but I can't think of any. I've had friends who committed suicide due to hatred pointed at them, and seeing how many downvotes you got for speaking against similar hatred is quite frankly horrifying.

I still think you weren't entirely arguing in good faith here, but I wanted to let you know that I was sorry about the tone of my previous post, and while I never called you a troll or anything, I feel bad for just thinking it now.

All food is perishable eventually. Even dried out crackers need to have an expiration date stated, even if it's in 3 years from when they were manufactured.

And for extreme perishables like milk, it's still possible for someone to accidentally leave it in the back of the refrigerator, forget about it, and 2 years later find it and be like, "Oh, I thought we still had some milk, lets check the date..."

THE
YEAR
NEEDS
TO
BE
INCLUDED
AND
COME
FIRST.

ALWAYS.

32-bit pointers are literally half the size of 64-bit pointers. This lets you fit twice as many of them in the same amount of RAM.

Fewer bits also mean faster calculations. It's faster to add two 32-bit numbers than 64-bit numbers.. And get this: you can have 64-bit integers in 32-bit applications, so if you DO need the extra precision you can still have it.

But subtracting pointers to get array offsets and the like? That will always be faster for 32-bit applications than 64-bit applications, because the pointers are half the size. So any time you have code featuring arrays of pointers and processing those pointers or what they point to (especially common in game development), you'll almost always have faster performance and lower memory usage under 32-bit.

I don't think you understand. Targeting release 44 or 46 would still be listing a specific Fedora release.

What they're saying is to not specify any specific release. When you exclude it entirely, you can instead say something like, "This is a proposal for what to eventually do, though it's uncertain when it would be feasible to put this into action."

That way for all anyone knows, you might be saying Fedora should follow the proposal starting in 300 years from now. Or next week. Or whenever it's determined to be a decent time to do it.

That would shift the discussion from "Should we or should we not do this," to, "WHEN should we do this, if we do it this way at all?" The result is a much more constructive conversation that actually focuses on the plan's technical merits, coupled with a back and forth about the timeline of implementing the plan, should it be deemed technically acceptable.