What's wrong with that? Computing history has a lot of machines with various co-processors which are used to offload various things from main CPU. Just as an example: Amiga and C64 had both co-processors for rendering text faster.
> > [Terminal m]ultiplexers add unnecessary overhead, suffer from a complexity cascade, because they actually have to translate escape codes, modifying them in hackish ways to get them to work with their concepts of windows/sessions. […]
So... like how a terminal emulator translates escape codes, modifying them in hackish ways to get them to work with X's/Wayland's/users' concepts of windows/sessions? :)
Obviously that's not an apples to apples comparison but really, while that may make it more complex and slightly buggier I don't see how that makes it bad.
> I find myself typing out “tmux” as the first command I run. Because it’s always going to be there, and it does the one thing I actually need it to no matter what: Let me run multiple shells at once, without SSHing in multiple times
I don't understand why people hate opening up another SSH session. If you're really worried about the 10 seconds it might take, you can easily configure it to take more like 1:
-M Places the ssh client into “master” mode for connection shar‐
ing. Multiple -M options places ssh into “master” mode but
with confirmation required using ssh-askpass(1) before each op‐
eration that changes the multiplexing state (e.g. opening a new
session). Refer to the description of ControlMaster in
ssh_config(5) for details.
The only reason I ever use screen is for persistence, the multi-windows is just a secondary feature.
> I don't understand why people hate opening up another SSH session. If you're really worried about the 10 seconds it might take, you can easily configure it to take more like 1:
Well, for one example, when you have an SSH key with a passphrase, you need to enter the passphrase at the start of every new SSH connection. If you are working with multiple servers continuously and lose your SSH sessions when your PC goes to sleep, it's quite nice to have tmux.
> You're creating a causal connection without a proof of one. We don't know why Altman referenced "Her", but I feel it's more likely because the product works in a way eerily similar to the movie's AI, not that because it sounds like it.
There's no proof needed. A marketer doesn't market something for no reason.
We are all capable of interpreting his statement and forming an opinion about its intent. Indeed, the entire point of making any statement is for others to form an opinion about it. That doesn't make our opinion invalid - nor does the whining and backpedaling of the person who made the statement.
Your opinion may be different than others, but I doubt that would be the case if you were truly approaching this situation in an unbiased way.
> When the reaction is “I don’t care that an investigation refuted some of the accusations”, it demonstrates someone isn’t openly approaching things in good faith.
When the reaction is "it doesn't matter, it's still not ok to copy someone's voice and then market it as being that person's voice or related to that person's voice" and your reaction is to cast that as being something else, it demonstrates you are not openly approaching things in good faith.
I'm not sure what RMS has to do with Altman. I'm also not sure why you think people just want to hate on Musk when it took a decade of his blatant lies for most people to catch on to the fact that he's a conman (remember, everyone loved him and Tesla for the first 5 or 10 years of lies). But the comparison between Musk and Altman is pretty apt, good job there.
Well not sure what you mean by 'Conman'. Wildly successful people do aim high a lot, a lot. They don't meet 80% of their goals, that is perfectly ok. Even as low as 20% success on a lot of these moonshot things sets you ahead of the masses who aim very low and get there 100% of the times.
This whole idea that some one has to comply to your idea of how one must set goals, and get there is something other people have no obligations to measure up to. Also that's the deal about his lies? He can say whatever he wants, and not get there. He is not exactly holding an oath to you or any one that he is at an error for not measuring up.
Musk might not get to Mars, he might end up mining asteroids or something. That is ok. That doesn't make him a conman.
tl;dr. Any one can say, work and fail at anything they want. And they don't owe anybody an explanation for a darn thing.
> It's not aiming high when anyone competent and informed can tell him there's no way, and he pays many competent and informed people to tell him.
You know that this is exactly how SpaceX won big? There were many a competent, credentialed people telling Musk that reusable rockets are a pipe dream, all the way to the first Falcon 9 landing and reflight. Some of them even continued giving such "competent and informed" advice for many months afterwards.
> Setting a goal is not the same as telling people the company that you are dictator of is going to do something.
> You know that this is exactly how SpaceX won big? There were many a competent, credentialed people telling Musk that reusable rockets are a pipe dream, all the way to the first Falcon 9 landing and reflight. Some of them even continued giving such "competent and informed" advice for many months afterwards.
And there were also people saying it could be done. Where were those people for self-driving? (Oh right they were in the Facebook comment section with no relevant knowledge.)
> That's literally what it means, though.
No, it's not at all.
A goal is personal, or perhaps organizational. You need not announce something on Twitter in order to set a goal for yourself or for your company.
How about the you have all the hardware you need - oh wait oopsie you need to pay us thousands more
How about the taking Tesla private tweet?
How about the repeatedly and flagrantly violating government contracts that are basically his company's only revenue because he's too powerful for consequences?
Self driving is actually coming along better than I thought it would. Version 12 behaves like a human driver.
The real source of your frustration though is that he does not fully subscribe to the neoliberal dogma and lets millions of others to say whatever they like. Totalitarian left can’t handle that, it’s a visceral reaction
> Self driving is actually coming along better than I thought it would. Version 12 behaves like a human driver.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Anyway that would be cool if it was true but doesn't change what a conman he is. He said he was gonna make it true how long ago? Yeah.
> The real source of your frustration though is that he does not fully subscribe to the neoliberal dogma and lets millions of others to say whatever they like. Totalitarian left can’t handle that, it’s a visceral reaction
That's not even remotely true. Seriously. No part of it.
- It's been obvious to me that he was a conman since he started lying at Tesla, a decade or more ago. 'Fraid to say that alone disproves your unfounded personal attack since he didn't own a social media platform at the time.
- He doesn't allow people to say whatever they like unless he agrees with them.
- He (ok, and perhaps you) is the only totalitarian in this conversation.
But hey good job trying to make this out to be about politics instead of about what a terrible human Musk is, I know that's the only way for you Repugnantcans to cope with the cognitive dissonance.
That may be true, but you specifically said "on this site" and now you're saying "this is not specific to this site". And no, the vast majority of people "try[ing] to pull them down" to Musk are doing it because he's an egotistical hypocritical whiny jackass.
It’s actually just a few comments away, and visible for me from the parent to your comment
> Well, from the start, Altman wanted SJ to do the voice. Perhaps he'd never seen or heard of the movie "her", and the association is just coincidental? After "she" said no, then Altman auditions a bunch of voice talent and picks someone who sounds just like SJ.
I suppose some might imagine asserting the opposite as a distinct concept from disputing but there you have it. You should be able to find a link quite easily.
I don't see where that quote says "they contacted SJ before they hired the actor that did the voice" or anything similar. Perhaps you need to taste it a bit more before you try again.
"Whether or not Altman wanted SJ's voice" and "whether or not they got someone else to do SJ's voice before asking SJ to do it" are two completely independent matters.
What part of "actor" in "voice actor" did you not understand? You don't hire an actor to play themselves generally. "SJ" was not playing herself in Her.
Except the story isn't false? They wanted her voice, they got her voice*, they did marketing around her voice, but it's not her voice, she didn't want to give them her voice.
Notice how the only asterisk there is "it's technically not her voice, it's just someone who they picked because she sounded just like her"
My God, what have we done