canadaduane

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Right! I guess this is precisely my point--big corporations are running with it, and so the future will be whatever they make it. But I want to make my future, which is why I've built solar panels on my home, built my own server, re-used old computer parts in my closet, hosted my own server, and am running a GPU with my own ollama and whisper AI algorithms on it. I'm hoping to take control and not just be a consumer of corporate enshittification.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

You're right, it's a bit tongue-in-cheek. But it's a fun name, and I found a lot of people didn't understand "no code / low code" and even more didn't really get excited about it. Vibecoding is interesting to people, I think.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

You make a good point about software being potentially low capital. Open source is a great counter example.

But I wonder how do we know what people need? Are the solutions out there actually good for everyone? My daughter is not a coder, but started vibecoding her own habit tracker app last week. She's very excited about her motivation system of stars and flowers, and the nuances of how to make it just right for her. She wrote 19 pages on a google doc describing her app. It's almost like a requirements document, and if she had $30k I bet she could hand that document over to a software engineer and they could build a mobile app for her.

If she hadn't built this app, I wonder how many habit tracker apps would have also advertised to her, or sold her habit data? If a person is not a software engineer, they kind of have to live with other people's decisions in the digital sphere (and some folks, I've found, aren't even able to evaluate software for safety, privacy, alignment with their values etc. let alone build it).

I guess I just wonder what the world would be like if the bar for personalized software were dropped so everyone could create just what is needed, for them, wherever they are and in whatever community they find themselves.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like you're angry at AI, or at least, you'd like it to diminish not grow in use.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

We often think of "AI" as what is promoted by big corporations--but it doesn't have to be. The math, algorithms, and machines that run AI can all be ours, and I think we can run them responsibly. For example--I run an AI transcription service just for myself on an old GPU. It works quite well. I also have solar panels installed on my home. I think it can be carbon neutral.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I recently bought a frame.work mini-PC and plan to run my own models, solar-powered.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

That's what I've been working towards!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I don't think I have intrusive thoughts. I'm happy, generally pretty creative (hobbies, coding, etc.). Sometimes politics and world affairs get me down, but I don't feel like they are "intrusive", more like affecting my mood. I like how /u/[email protected] put it--I kind of let my mind do whatever it does, and I try to be an observer of what unfolds. I think meditation practice has helped with this practice (Vipassana or Insight meditation specifically).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

theinternet.com

[–] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

It's tricky. There is code involved, and the code is open source. There is a neural net involved, and it is released as open weights. The part that is not available is the "input" that went into the training. This seems to be a common way in which models are released as both "open source" and "open weights", but you wouldn't necessarily be able to replicate the outcome with $5M or whatever it takes to train the foundation model, since you'd have to guess about what they used as their input training corpus.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I see. Yeah, I agree with you there.

 

I enjoy writing in a journal. I don't do it every day like I used to, but I do it frequently when going through emotionally intense periods of life. This seems to be a healthy balance for me--use the skill when it is most useful.

This started me thinking--is journaling also beneficial for those near us? For example, does listing out or even working through feelings in a journal also help us to take things less personally, perhaps? Or to be able to hear someone out without needing to interject our story?

(Ostensibly, because we've already had a chance to "write our story down" somewhere, almost like we are hearing ourselves out?)

1
Emotion Fixing (www.family-institute.org)
 

The Family Institute at Northwestern University has a "tip of the month" newsletter for couples that I receive in my email inbox. I liked this one:

Trying to fix emotions, example 1:

  • Partner One: “I feel really discouraged today…”
  • Partner Two: “Come take a walk with me, it’s a really beautiful day out.”

Trying to fix emotions, example 2:

  • Partner One: “I’m so frustrated with the people at work, they spend all day complaining.”
  • Partner Two: “You should just quit, we can get by on my salary for a while.”

Trying to fix emotions, example 3:

  • Partner One: “We never hear from the kids. It bothers me that they don’t call once in a while to see how we are.”
  • Partner Two: “They’re busy with their own lives. You shouldn’t let it bother you, it’s not that big a deal.”

See the pattern? These are examples of the three most common ways we try to change — or fix — our partner’s negative emotions. In the first example, Partner Two suggests looking on the bright side as a way of lifting one’s spirits. In the second example, Partner Two becomes Mister or Miss Fixit, offering unsolicited advice that they hope will provide relief. In the third example, Partner Two admonishes his partner for feeling the way she does. Each response invalidates what Partners One are feeling; each fails, in its own way, to acknowledge through empathic listening the negative emotion that’s being expressed. That failure leaves Partners One feeling alone and without a sense of being seen and heard by the one person they most wish would understand them (see Empathy Advantage).

Why is emotion-fixing so common? In part, we never learned that empathic listening is the far superior way to respond to a partner’s distress. The skill of empathic listening doesn’t come to us naturally; it’s something that’s learned either through formal instruction (view the short videos below) or by watching it modeled by the people around us. On a deeper level, emotion-fixing is something we do because emotional pain tends to be contagious and we ourselves don’t want to feel badly. Our brains are wired, through mirror neurons, to feel what others are feeling, whether positive or negative. Without realizing it, we protect ourselves from slipping into a negative place by trying to help — to “fix”— our partner’s painful emotions.

The skill of empathic listening strengthens all our relationships, whether it’s with our primary partner, our children, or our friends. Few experiences promote a stronger bond between people than feeling seen and heard in our emotions. The skill applies across all age groups (although we may choose different words depending on whom we’re talking to). Watch how empathic listening is used by the parents in the short videos below and try it with your partner the next time you hear even the smallest expression of negative emotion.

 

My father-in-law told us both when we were married: "Remember that sometimes you will be a friend to one another, and other times you will be a parent. Everyone needs to cry like a child sometimes."

Do you have any advice that you've been given that helped you be a better partner?

 

This short presentation by Paul Chappell changed me. He outlines how unmet human needs can translate into the social disorders that we face today--things like school shootings, and depression. His personal story is one of "nearly becoming the bad guy" in a school shooting, followed by years serving in the military, and then finding his calling as a peace advocate.

 

One of the most influential books in my life is Nonviolent Communication. I'd like to summarize why its concepts are so powerful to me.

At the core of it is a beautiful understanding of the human spirit and condition--and a reassuring observation that we as human beings are very similar on the inside, even if culturally or historically unique in our traumas.

Rosenberg identifies that our cross-cultural, shared humanity is linked through feelings. These basic feelings are universal and can be understood universally--feelings like embarrassment, joy, fear, anger, etc. He emphasizes that he is talking about the most basic of feelings, not the higher level judgment-laden feelings that may be difficult to hear or understand ("I feel like you lied to me" is not a basic feeling, but something like "I feel angry" probably is).

He also identifies that feelings arise when we have unmet needs. There are shared human needs--he offers many examples, such as the need for security, the need for stability, the need for dignity, etc. These shared human needs can also act as a kind of "translation map" to understand people different from ourselves.

This is the essence of nonviolent communication: If we are willing, we can offer to describe the reality of our feelings to others--and the needs we perceive--and others will often (but not always) respond by trying to fulfill our needs.

The practice of communicating nonviolently allows us to exist with dignity in the world and respond to each others needs. This offers an alternative to coercion & violence, and their cumulative ill effects on individuals and society at large.

 

"Hi, I am currently creating a gtk theme. Honestly I'm new to this, and I really don't know where to find information about this kind of thing, I want to post it once I finish it on github, I don't know whether to make this a project. or not, so I want to give something quality and finished when I get to post it. I must say that it is based on colloid and therefore on catppuccine. That's it, and yes. I still owe you the pop!_os I made."

Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/pop_os/comments/1643bob/my_theme/

 

Incredibly, running a local LLM (large language model) on just the CPU is possible with Llama.cpp!— however, it can be pretty slow. I get about 1 token every 2 seconds with a 34 billion parameter model on an 11th gen Intel framework laptop with 64GB of RAM.

I have an external Nvidia GPU connected to my Pop!_OS laptop, and I’ve used the following technique to successfully compile Llama.cpp to use clblast (a BLAS adapter library) to speed up various LLMs (such as codellama-34b.Q4_K_M.gguf). As a rough estimate, the speed-up I get is about 5x on my Nvidia 3080 TI.

Here's how to compile Llama.cpp inside a docker container on Pop!_OS.

 

Our new, not yet released Rust-based desktop environment for Pop!_OS and other Linux distros is filling out with some essential systems that cater the DE to both users and developers alike. Customization is one of our main focuses for COSMIC, and was a huge focus for us in August, too.

 

I like to have easy access to an offline dictionary via the Pop Launcher (Super key, followed by "define ").

You can install this dictionary/launcher plugin like so:

curl -sSf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/canadaduane/pop-dictionary/main/install.sh | sh

Then try tapping the Super key (e.g. Windows key, or whatever gets you into your Launcher overlay) then type "define awesome" and you should see the GoldenDict entry for "awesome" pop up.

Hope you enjoy!

view more: ‹ prev next ›