Yes. From the BIC website:

Why is there a hole in the cap of BIC® Cristal® Pens?

Our vented caps comply with international safety standards ISO11540. These standards attempt to minimize the risk to children from accidental inhalation of pen caps. Traditionally the pen cap served only to protect the pen point. These vented caps allow more air to circulate around the pen point when the pen is capped. This further adds to the quality and overall performance of the pen.

I’m running the 1.5b distilled version locally and it seems pretty heavily censored at the weights level to me.

Here’s someone doing 200 tokens/s (for context, OpenAI doesn’t usually get above 100) on… A Raspberry Pi.

Yes, the “$75-$120 micro computer the size of a credit card” Raspberry Pi.

If all these AI models can be run directly on users devices, or on extremely low end hardware, who needs large quantities of top of the line GPUs?

The good ol’ Collective Action Problem.

The thing is, you don’t have to leave in order to get out. I know it sounds oxymoronic, but let me explain.

You’re not limited to just one social media account, that much is obvious to everybody. So, create an account on a competing platform, and be the reason someone else is able to justify quitting. If someone else says “hey, I want to leave” and you also say “I want to leave too,” but neither of you have even made an account elsewhere, nobody ever leaves.

If you make a new account elsewhere, then when that person says “hey, I want to leave,” you can say, “follow me on Pixelfed,” and even if they don’t uninstall Instagram, and just make a Pixelfed account, you’re one less instance of

I can’t follow the people I want to follow anywhere else

to keep them stuck there. You’ve now had them make an account, then someone they know goes through the same process you did, and so on.

Eventually, the alternative is populated enough that deleting the old service isn’t difficult anymore. All you have to do is be one of the people to take the first step, and become the reason for someone else to justify leaving.

Make sure to point them towards Pixelfed! The more people we can get onboarded to federated platforms, the better.

Anti-intellectualism is the only way fascism can survive, because fascism’s ideals are not based in logic or material realities, they’re based in selfish self-interest and feelings. The Republicans are fascists, thus they must be anti-intellectual. If they weren’t anti-intellectual, then they wouldn’t be Republicans.

They genuinely didn’t know, they were just asking because they wanted an answer! /s

Proton does this.

I hate community notes, it’s a cost free way of fact checking with no accountability.

I don’t think it’s necessarily bad, but it can be harmful if done on a platform that has a significant skew in its political leanings, because it can then lead to the assumption that posts must be true because they were “fact checked” even if the fact check was actually just one of the 9:1 ratio of users that already believes that one thing.

However, on platforms that have more general, less biased overall userbases, such as YouTube, a community notes system can be helpful, because it directly changes the platform incentives and design.

I like to come at this from the understanding that the way a platform is designed influences how it is used and perceived by users. When you add a like button but not a dislike button, you only incentivize positive fleeting interactions with posts, while relegating stronger negative opinions to the comments, for instance. (see: Twitter)

If a platform integrates community notes, that not only elevates content that had any effort at all made to fact check it (as opposed to none at all) but it also means that, to get a community note, somebody must at least attempt to verify the truth. And if someone does that, then statistically speaking, there’s at least a slightly higher likelihood that the truth is made apparent in that community note than if none existed to incentivize someone to fact check in the first place.

Again, this doesn’t work in all scenarios, nor is it always a good decision to add depending on a platform’s current design and general demographic political leanings, but I do think it can be valuable in some cases. (This also heavily depends on who is allowed access to create the community notes, of course)

I’m not sure if this is entirely relevant, but depending on your local climate it could be related to the smell known as petrichor that you will often get when it rains/is about to rain on soil, which could be affected by the moisture in your local area that accumulated overnight then evaporating more quickly as the sun rises.

Local AI Tagging (Optional)

Finally a good use of AI that doesn’t overpromise functionality it can’t actually provide. Just a system for rewriting page text as tags. This is a feature I’ll legitimately use.

It’s what drives most billionaire mentalities: elite projection.

They think that what they want must be what everyone wants. They believe that what’s best for them is best for everyone as long as they believe it to be morally okay for their own interests.

For a billionaire that regularly isolates himself from not just society, but also his own company’s employees, having fake profiles where computers do the communication instead of a human, go along and agree with whatever you say, remain eternally unoffensive, and exist solely to increase engagement doesn’t seem like a bad idea, since it seems almost like what he’d want for himself.

All requests are proxied through DuckDuckGo, and all personalized user metadata is removed. (e.g. IPs, any sort of user/session ID, etc)

They have direct agreements to not train on or store user data, (the training part is specifically relevant to OpenAI & Anthropic) with a requirement they delete all information once no longer necessary (specifically for providing responses) within 30 days.

For the Llama & Mixtral models, they host them on together.ai (an LLM-focused cloud platform) but that has the same data privacy requirements as OpenAI and Anthropic.

Recent chats that are saved for later are stored locally (instead of on their servers) and after 30 conversations, the last chat before that is automatically purged from your device.

Obviously there’s less technical privacy guarantees than a local model, but for when it’s not practical or possible, I’ve found it’s a good option.

And there are also free, online hosted instances of those same LLMs in a (relatively speaking) privacy-protecting format from DuckDuckGo, for anyone who doesn’t have a powerful GPU :)

Please explain how having ads or subscriptions in any way requires you to have a marketing department and c-suite executives that get to siphon money from operational budgets.

It’s possible, but funding changes at scale.

For example, more people using federated protocols like Mastodon or Lemmy are going to be early adopters that care more about underlying technology and have stronger ideological views about online platforms, compared to, say, your average Facebook mom.

So of course, they’re going to be more likely to donate. Once you scale outside of those groups into groups of people who don’t care as much, and are less invested in the technology, you get less donations.

Sites can work on donation models (again, see Wikipedia) but it’s much more difficult to have such a system stay afloat than one where monetization is much more heavily required, and thus generates more revenue.

It’s not ideal, but it’s also difficult to have such a system work otherwise in many cases.

and do not have to deal with the added tasks of ads and trackers commercial sites use.

They use these things because it makes them more money than it costs. If ads and trackers costed more to implement than not having them, then they wouldn’t use them in the first place.

You could pretty easily build a youtube like site around it.

PeerTube exists if you’re interested, by the way.

Sites can be distributed, the technology to do that has existed since the mid 90’s.

Certain aspects of sites can be distributed, but others can’t as easily be. For instance, you could have a P2P federated network where every user of, say, Mastodon, helps host and redistribute content from posts, but that’s not how these systems are built right now, and they’d have difficulties with things like maintaining accurate like counts.

It would be ideal if they could be built in a way that removes the need for a central platform in the first place, and can run on general-purpose devices, and thus doesn’t carry costs that require monetization, but because they aren’t built like that, they will eventually need to monetize as they scale up. Unless they change the entire underlying technological model of these federated platforms, they will inevitably need to monetize if they gain enough users outside the (relatively speaking) small bubble of dedicated users that can easily fund a platform through hobby money and donations.

There is no larger site the internet wouldn’t be better without.

You’re targeting the larger sites as they exist, not the concepts and underlying functionality.

If you want social media, no matter if it’s Lemmy or Reddit, it costs a hell of a lot of money to host that. If you wanted social media, even a federated model like Lemmy or Mastodon to actually scale to all the people that are otherwise using other sites like Meta’s, you have to fund it somehow, and those funding models change at scale.

I’m not saying needing money like this is good, but it’s simply objectively difficult to fund any platform, for any purpose, when handling so many users. The only reason Lemmy and other federated platforms are funded so well right now is because they can be done at a hobbyist level, for a hobbyist cost, in most cases.

Once you scale up to the whole world, your funding model simply has to change. Donations can work, but they’re much more difficult to get working than either ads or subscriptions in terms of securing long-term funding at scale.

Because most mastodon instances are running off donations, and have a relatively small user base.

The kind of people who use Mastodon are substantially more likely to be heavily invested in the technology and the vision, and thus more likely to donate.

Expand that out to the billions of people who use social media, and you have a funding problem.

Not to mention the much lesser need for moderation due to more homogeneous and well-intentioned micro communities and substantially lower rate of bots, which all means less “staff” you have to pay too.

It’s not a matter of minimum viability, it’s a matter of scale.

The early internet also couldn’t provide most of the larger sites and platforms we now use. As it grew, it had to monetize in order to actually operate. If you want something outside the scope of a passion project, you need funding outside the scope of a passion project. The early internet did so well with people who actually cared because they didn’t have to operate platforms that couldn’t just care. They were operating things like personal sites and chatrooms, not social networks, document editors, or newsrooms.

Federated servers with donation-based models can function as of now, but you’d have a hard time covering hosting costs if every normal social media user began using federated platforms. There’s simply too many of them.

I’m not saying ads improve content, I’m not saying they’re the best model, and if you refuse to accept ads anywhere, that’s fine, but sites simply can’t all provide services for free, and if we want sites with the same functionality we have today, they need to monetize somehow.

Donations are definitely an option (I mean, hey, look at Wikipedia) but it isn’t necessarily viable for every online venture. For a lot of platforms, monetization must be compelled in some way, whether it’s by pushing ads, or paywalling with a subscription. The best option a platform can offer if it’s not capable of just running off donations alone is to let users choose the monetization they prefer to deal with.

This isn’t really much of an issue, practically speaking. The likelihood of someone buying a subscription is different than buying a product from an ad.

For instance, while I’m highly likely to pay for a subscription to a streaming service that lets me watch videos from creators (in my case, Nebula) I’m not likely to buy any products from a sponsorship or YouTube ad. (and haven’t, thus far)

My likelihood of paying for a product in an ad is entirely separate from paying for the service those ads are on, and this is commonly true for many people.

If there’s an independent news outlet I want to support, I’m going to feel more inclined to pay them than I am to buy a product in an ad, just because each carries different incentives for me. I want to support the news outlet, I don’t want to buy a product somewhere else.

This is anecdotal, and I understand that, but as someone else had also mentioned before, even companies like Netflix are promoting their revenue from the ad tier, and having both is a good mechanism to keep the business afloat and allow it to acquire customers who don’t want to spend too much.