This will be almost impossible. The short answer is that those pictures might be 95% similar but their binary data might be 100% different.

Long answer:

Images are essentially a long list of pixels, each pixel is 3 numbers for Red, Green and Blue (and optionally Alpha if you’re dealing with a transparent image, but you’re talking pictures so I’ll ignore that). This is a simple but very stupid way to store the data of an image, because it’s very likely that the image will use the same color in multiple places, so you can instead list all of the colors a image uses, and then represent the pixels as the number in that list, this makes images occupy a LOT less space. Some formats add to that, because your eye can’t see the difference between two very close colors, they group all colors that are similar into one only color, making their list of colors used on the image WAY smaller, thus having the entire image be a LOT more compressed (but you might noticed we lost information in this step). Because of this it’s possible that one image choose color X in position Y, while the other choose Z in position W, the binaries are now completely different, but an image comparison tool can tell you that color X and Z are similar enough to be the same, and they account for a given percentage of the image depending on the amount minimum of the values Y and W. But outside of image software, nothing else knows that these two completely different binaries are the same. If you hadn’t loss data by compressing get images in the first place you could theoretically use data from different images to compress (but the results wouldn’t be great, since even uncompressed images won’t be as similar as you think), but images can be compressed a LOT more by losing unimportant data so the tradeoffs are not worth it, which is why JPEG is so ubiquitous nowadays.

All of that being said, a compression algorithm specifically designed for images could take advantage of this, but no general purpose compression can, and it’s unlikely someone went to the trouble of building a compression for this specific case, when each image is already compressed there’s little to be gained by writing something that takes colors from multiple images in consideration, needing to decide if an image is similar enough to be bundled in together with that group or not, etc. This is an interesting question, and I wouldn’t br surprised to know that Google has one such algorithm to store all images you snap together that it can already know will be sequential. But for home NAS I think it’s unlikely you’ll find something.

Besides all of this, storage is cheap, just buy an extra disk and move over some files there, that’s likely to be your best way forward anyways.

I didn’t understood your criticism, what are they unwilling to release? What are they claiming all of? Why would ownership rules cause an OOM?

Sharing stack memory is a bad practice in C as well btw.

I just got to work and plugged my surface pro into my external monitor. It didn’t switch inputs immediately, and I thought “Linux would have done that”. But would it?

Nope. My laptop for example doesn’t automatically use an output when plugged in, but that doesn’t bother me because I know other DEs would do that, and it’s my choice of having a minimal window manager that causes that.

And this goes into your next point, because I know that this comes from decisions I made, I’m okay with that. I also know I could probably fix it somehow, even if just by running a script in the background that checks if an output is plugged and tries to use it.

And for me that’s the big difference. As a general rule when things break or don’t work are not the fault of Linux as a general, but of a specific piece of the stack, and more often than not it’s because that piece was backwards engineered without any help from the manufacturers of the hardware it’s meant to be controlling, so I can be very tolerant of these errors since the bad guys here are the third-party who’s refusing to make their things work on Linux. But even things that don’t work as I want to, I can make them do so, and that’s a huge change in viewpoint.

In other words, on Windows I used to be of the thought of things you can do, and things you can’t, with time I noticed that in Linux this thought shifted, to the point that the only question I ever ask myself is: “HOW do I do this?”. This implies that there are no impossible things in Linux, which is obviously false, but I would argue that the correct way to think about this is “things that are impossible on Linux, for now”, and that’s a huge difference, because Linux is always evolving and getting better and better, things you thought are impossible now might be trivial in a few months or years whenever someone with the knowledge to fix it gets bothered with it.

First of all you’re missing the point.

Drivers are automatic during setup.

That still means third-party drivers, so it’s still not a Windows win but rather a “windows is so ubiquitous that Logitech (or whoever) was forced to release a driver for it”, which is what the comment you’re replying was talking about.

Secondly, bullshit. In my 20 years using Linux I have never, ever, plugged in a mouse that didn’t get immediately recognized and worked as expected. What mouse do you have? You said Logitech, which model? The only thing that I ever needed specialized software on a Logitech mouse was to configure extra buttons or to pair it to a different dongle (both stuffs that also need specialized software only provided by Logitech on Windows)

Data in Bitcoin is undeletable, it’s impossible for any law to force anything from being deleted on Bitcoin. Then the same exceptions that apply there would apply to Lemmy since the technology is similar in the relevant aspects (besides deletion being theoretically possible on Lemmy).

As for Meta, the problem is that the data they’re sharing is not public. Meta is not getting fined for sharing things you posted on your publicly, since they share those regardless by virtue of them existing and being publicly available, they’re fined for sharing things you put privately or data derived from non publicly available sources such as how you interact with Meta.

Any information that a user willingly makes public can be processed in any way, even if it includes identifiable medical information (which is the biggest no-no of GDPR). It even has a specific point about it in 9.2.e

processing relates to personal data which are manifestly made public by the data subject;

Essentially saying you can process anything that was made public by the person. GDPR is to protect people from companies doing shady things, not to prevent people from themselves. Because EVERYTHING is public in Lemmy, all data in it has been manifestly made public by the person who created it.

Still, the archival nature of decentralized communities is one of the primary objectives of the technology. It’s arguably the defining feature of any decentralized thing that no one controls everything so things are meant to stay “forever”. Otherwise Bitcoin would be completely ilegal since there’s no way to delete information there.

What do you do if someone in the US refuses to delete and maybe gives you that argument about freedom of expression? That’s right. You pay damages to your user because you screwed it up.

Not really, again, the text of the law states that if the information has been made public the company must inform whoever they made the data public to:

Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data.

AFAIK Lemmy federated deletions, whether an instance acts on it or not is another matter.

But GDPR doesn’t work like you think, let me give you an example, say you sent an email from provider A to someone on provider B, then you decide to delete that email account, the email you sent will still be in provider B, even if company A deletes all of your information that email is still there and won’t get deleted. This is fine with GDPR, otherwise no email provider could operate here. Same goes for other federated or decentralized technologies.

Sorry, forgot about answering here. Although the name is General data it is about personal data. I was going to reply with point by point why it either doesn’t apply to Lemmy or it follows GDPR, but I think it might be easier to answer directly your point about right to be forgotten.

First of all Lemmy allows you to delete your posts and user so it complies with it, but even if it didn’t GEPR has this to say:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 are the right to be forgotten

for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;

Which one could argue is public forum primary use

for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing;

Which again one could argue is part of the purpose of Lemmy as well.

Those are the usual problems in Linux, they can be summed up by “Third party companies don’t support Linux”, and they are especially annoying because with time you learn that there’s no reason that thing shouldn’t work, other than because the company either purposefully figures out if you’re running Linux and crashes the program (e g. DRM, anti-cheat, etc) or because they created their own closed proprietary protocol and refuse to share the public API for it so it needs to be reverse engineered.

At the same time I think most people don’t think about how much prior knowledge you need to just be able to use Windows or Mac. And for someone without ANY prior knowledge all of them are the same.

Story time, my MiL is a zero when it gets to computer literacy, to the point that every week I had to solve something for her. Eventually I gave her a laptop with Linux in it to make it easier for me to do support, and to my surprise she had lots of problems the first months when setting things up and until learning the ropes, but afterwards there were almost no problems.

The thing is that people have a lot of Windows knowledge, so when they try Linux they expect it to be Windows and get frustrated when it’s not.

I’m fairly certain that SSH and whatever else you’re exposing has had vulnerabilities fixed since then, especially if modern distros refuse to use the ssh key you were using, this screams of “we found something so critical here we don’t want to touch it”. If your server exposes anything in a standard port, e.g. SSH on 22, you probably should do a fresh install (although I would definitely not know how to rebuild a system I built almost 20 years ago).

That being said, it’s amazing that an almost 20 year old system can work for almost 10 years without touching anything.

Any OS can break and need reinstalling if you screw stuff up, but the majority of them would have a hard time running constantly for almost a decade without so much as a side glance.

It doesn’t exactly ignore it, but in a sense GDPR doesn’t apply to Lemmy.

Long story short, GDPR is made to protect private information, and EVERYTHING in Lemmy is public so there is no private information to protect. It’s similar to things like pastebin or even public feed in Facebook, companies cannot be penalized for people willingly exposing their information publicly, but private information that is made public is a problem.

Was going to reply that, it’s not that Russian doesn’t have it, it just gets omitted in the most common form.

But also one interesting thing is that from the examples you gave I can know your gender, because the verb to be is gendered in the past in Russian, which is very unique, I don’t know of any other language where verbs are gendered.

Came to say this, I remember when I first looked at VLC version and saw Rincewind (I think it was), and was like “this has to be a Discworld reference”

No, you would be a coherent person, you can’t even fathom how you would interact with a tech yet believe it’s possible that’s literally crazy or purposefully avoiding it. Plus answering that proves you have absolutely no idea what an LLM is, you’re just astonished by the term “AI” and truly believe ChatGPT is intelligent. And also proves you have absolutely no idea how computers work in a general manner, to you they’re just magic boxes that do magic and show you things on a screen, therefore anything can happen in your mind.

You talked about the evolution from current AIs so logically you would prompt them in natural language (since they’re LLMs), your refusal to give me a prompt for how you would use these LLMs is obviously due to your knowledge that I will find issues with your prompt, thus confirming this is not possible for an LLM.

He got it, you’re the one who’s not getting it, it is impossible to prompt an entire program to an LLM, I mean you can do it, but even a perfect LLM will give you back a steaming pile of shit, and the reason is because you asked for a steaming pile of shit without realizing it.

I’ll make you the same challenge again, write me a prompt as you would to this “AI” for it to do complex stuff and I’ll point out several of the assumptions a non-AGI software could wrongly make.

And that’s the problem, seeing VR on a flat screen and saying it looks fake is like hearing music through busted earphones and saying it sounds awful.

If you have the opportunity to try some, do, even the first Oculus Quest would do. The graphics don’t matter as much as you think, the refresh rate doesn’t matter as much as you think, the immersion is incredible because you get depth perception which you completely miss from a flat screen.

Yes, I’m stuck with the paradigm that computers are not intelligent and can’t understand what I mean, there’s a term for a software that can: “AGI”.

Any programmer knows that using LLMs for programming is one of the following cases:

• It’s not used in any meaningful way, i.e. it generates boilerplate code like getters and setters or used instead of Google.
• It makes the team take longer, because they need to scrutinize and understand what was generated.
• It makes a shitty version of the program because it doesn’t understand the need or the corner cases

Only people who don’t understand programming think LLMs are useful as they are now, until computers are actually intelligent and actually understand what you’re asking them to do and think on all of the corner cases and take decisions for all of the things you didn’t specifically ask it to consider those 3 cases will be the only outcome for “AI” in programming.

Don’t believe me? Tell me a prompt you would use to generate a useful program (i.e. not a Hello World) and I’ll list multiple assumptions that you’re making about how this needs to work that you did not include in your prompt therefore the “AI” will not cover.

You’re talking about a computer you can ask it to do any stuff and it not only understands what you ask (computers can do this now) but what you mean (you need an AGI for that).

You can already replace anyone whose sole job is to copy paste stuff from stack overflow, but that’s not all a programmer does.

There’s an excellent demonstration of what being a programmer is that some teachers do on a programming 101 class which is have the students describe step by step how to do day-to-day tasks, and always people will skip steps or not consider corner cases. Being a programmer is knowing how to explain stuff to a computer in an unambiguous way, and until computers gave a general intelligence they’ll not do ambiguous tasks or make wrong assumptions about it. If LLMs became advanced enough that you could “prompt” the computer to do stuff, the prompt would have to be very specific, and written in a very specific way, which would essentially become a programming language.

Have you used one though? I remember thinking the same until I used one.