> Not paying musicians anything at all if they don't have enough streams
... 1000 plays in a year?
We're taking a handful of people (Close friends? A proud mother? The artist themselves?) listening a few times a week.
If an artist has no following, and creates music that listeners consider substitutable for AI slop or low-effort shovelware, then they are hobbyists with no reasonable right to renumeration?
Outside of work, I'm a very sporadic coder. On some side-projects where I'm using Actions, I'll have an inspired few days of progress followed by completely idle weeks/months/quarters.
Losing free Actions doesn't particularly bother me, and I have no issue with paying what is most likely a negligible amount, but I don't really want to have a credit card on file which could be charged some unbounded amount if somebody gets into my account. I've shut down my personal AWS for similar reasons.
Is there any way of me just loading up a one-time $20? That will probably last well into 2027, and give me the peace of mind that I can just let it run. If my account's compromised, or I misconfigure something that goes wild, I am perfectly happy to write off that amount and have my incredibly-low-stakes toy projects fail to build.
Setup something like CircleCI that mainly relies on paid users of their main product, and has a free plan. Microsoft currently seem to be in the process of figuring out how to lower the costs of GitHub for free users, since I'm guessing they make their actual money on other segments and products.
There are several “virtual credit card” providers that allow you to generate additional cards, set limit on them like amounts and who can charge the CC. The availability varies per geography.
The problem with that is you might still get a huge bill if something goes wrong, then they try to charge it to your card at the end of the day/week/month/whatever, and it fails.
Now you still owe them the money, but haven't paid, so they tell you to pay on another card. If you refuse, they start debt collection against you and you could end up with your credit rating being affected, and maybe court cases and so on.
I want give the company an amount of money, then know that it's run out and I have to pay for more. You can set monthly limits (https://github.com/settings/billing/budgets), but if you are like me and have personal projects that you work on for a week or two a few times a year, that doesn't really work.
I know AWS, Azure, and GCP do allow for global caps. Azure has it with subscriptions for example. Not sure if it is only on recurring monthly basis. Having a pre-paid lump sum version available is nice but it would also open the door for denial of service if cash runs out. Maybe that is why it isn’t offered?
As someone who has had an occasional nasty AWS bill, the Ai providers using a pre-pay credit system is something I approve of, and would love to see everyone else offer.
I just want to say I found this quite an insightful comment. I similarly would love to use a pay-as-you-go pricing model as a way of safely trying out various SaaS services.
Unfortunately I feel it is not in the SaaS businesses interests, who want to replicate the gym membership model where the 70% who don't use the service are supplementing the other 30% who use it frequently.
Realistically you aren't their target market. They're targeting the enterprises who already have self hosted runners and aren't interested in switching to Actions minutes.
Australia is a Five Eyes country, with carte blanche access to data that the incumbent social media companies freely share with all the acronym deep-state authorities.
Could you elaborate further on how preventing a sizeable proportion of its citizens from communicating through these established spy-nets, causing them to disperse out to unpredictable alternatives they might not be able to control, increases mass surveillance?
That's definitely an interesting argument I haven't seen before.
I suppose it depends on how effective these types of measures actually are, and also on how many adults refuse to identify themselves. I would assume governments are more interested in spying on adults than under-16s, so the adults are probably more relevant here.
I hope you're right, though. Maybe there'll be a renaissance of smaller platforms. Probably not, but I can hope.
This legislation left it entirely up to the service providers to determine implementation, and so far they don't seem particularly motivated to disrupt my usage by asking me to prove my age.
My suspicion is that fairly simple heuristics of age estimation, combined with social graph inspection, are probably enough to completely disrupt the network effects of "social media" for kids, and achieve the stated objectives well enough that I never have to.
Maybe it turns out that I'm wrong, but why even risk it? If the true policy goal is extending mass-surveillance, why waste so much political capital on such a round-about approach which might yield nothing, or even set back your existing capabilities.
MyID (myid.gov.au) already exists, and could easily have been mandated, or "recommended", or even offered as a means of age verification now. But it wasn't.
Aside from YouTube I don't particularly engage with any of these often, but my Google, Facebook, Discord, Twitter, Bluesky, (current) Reddit, Slack, Telegram accounts all seem to be BAU without new requirements.
If the 80% of us currently holding unambiguously-over-16 accounts are exempt, and it only affects future over-16 users as they're onboarded, then it is a very blunt and very slow form of data harvesting which won't yield useful results until years/decades after all of the relevant decision-makers have moved on, retired and/or died. So this seems unlikely?
> Out of the five options available, only one is European (the one I am using). What I don't like is how I cannot add my own custom endpoint. What if I run Mistral locally (with Ollama, for example) and want to use that?
Set up your preferred self-hosted web interface (OpenWebUI or whatever, I haven't looked into this for a while), point it at ollama, and then configure it in Firefox:
browser.ml.chat.provider = http://localhost:3000/
At home I point this at Kagi Assistant, at work I point it to our internal GenAI platform's chat endpoint.
Out of curiosity, for the AI inept, how does this work? I can just point firefox at "https://kagi.com/assistant" and it can use it? Is that using MCP or is there some other standard interface for this?
Most of these AI providers use a similar kind of common query structure. OpenWebUI is a mostly consistent copy of ChatGPT so that's what the browser seems to default to when you configure something custom.
The formatted prompt is something like "The user is on the page 'Stories about Cats'. The user wants you to summarize the following text: <text you have selected goes here>". You can configure your own prompt in about:config if you want, there are a bunch of examples here: https://github.com/mozilla-l10n/firefox-l10n/blob/main/en-GB...
There are prompts optimised for specific AI providers but the generic ones should work with any provider your choose.
When the web page opens at that URL, you're either going to get redirected to login and then redirected back, or the AI frontend will start executing the prompt.
It is fucking wild that we need to resort to putting pig kidneys into humans to squeeze out a few more months of life, while tens of millions of perfectly good human organs are burned or left to rot in the ground each year.
I recently moved away from pass after a decade or so.
Two main reasons:
1. This laptop up was set up with flatpak versions of all GUI applications, including Firefox, and the browser plugin just doesn't work. I persisted with the work-around of `pass -c <path>` from the run command prompt for a while to paste into the browser, but its not ideal.
I made the switch from pass recently too. I had ~400 secrets stored in it for almost the same time as you.
Ultimately I wanted something easier to sync between multiple devices. Now that I am traveling more seriously I can't get away with only having a few important passwords saved on my phone and laptop.
It was a lot easier to sync (1) file with KeePassXC and it has 2 well supported Android apps to choose from. It took me around 3 hours one day to manually move everything over, I took that as an opportunity to prune and refactor everything which is why I didn't use the CSV import feature.
Password managers for me are a "write occasionally, read frequently" app so it's pretty painless to shoot over 1 file over my local network to keep 3 devices in sync.
That's curious. I moved from KeePassXC to pass precisely because the synchronization story for the database file wasn't working so well. For too many times I ended up with an outdated database in the backend server because the sync process failed to work properly.
After I moved to pass, every credential became its own file and I rarely edited the same credential in way too many devices. For the rare conflicts I had, having it being Git made it possible to resolve them without massive hassle.
Then again, that was also some many years ago. Maybe the synchronization story is better these days.
I didn't like the idea of pushing a pass git repo to a private GitHub repo.
For now I just temporarily drop the DB onto Google Drive manually (through the web site since I don't use the app) to quickly share it to the other devices without worrying about USB cables or running native apps on each device. Then I delete it from Google Drive.
I'm hesitent to use "sync" type of tools that run on each device because I don't have a central server. Also I really don't like the idea of running any type of cloud hosted network storage desktop app on each device to have a network drive.
We'll see how it goes I suppose.
I wonder if it'll involve writing a tiny shell script that I run on my desktop machine to handle syncing it across devices and it always ensures the latest copy makes its way onto each device. That would allow me to freely add new entries on any device and worry about syncing it across devices when I am 100% sure all devices are on the same local network. I think that will work out in the end.
I don't need real-time replication because if I'm on the road using my phone, I don't mind my desktop being outdated until I get back home.
> I didn't like the idea of pushing a pass git repo to a private GitHub repo.
I had the same reluctance at first, but after considering it was protected both with my gpg
key and my passphrase, and private on top of that, I came to the conclusion it is fine for me. It feels assuring to have it in a remote location where it is safe if I have burglary or fire or an accident like that. My keys are in a few secure locations too
> I persisted with the work-around of `pass -c <path>` from the run command prompt for a while to paste into the browser, but its not ideal.
There's also `passmenu` that comes with `pass`. You setup a keybinding that calls that. It autocompletes your password selection with a menu (calls dmenu) and puts it on your clipboard. You skip having to invoke the command prompt then manually calling `pass -c` and writing the path.
Well shit, I didn't realize the Android app was shelved. I checked out the fork and it looks like they're doing good work there. I'm a bit surprised that the maintainers of both didn't work out a transfer; who else better to take over the project than a active fork?
Makes me wonder if something else was the issue, such as disagreeing over security practices or the like.
> I persisted with the work-around of `pass -c <path>` from the run command prompt for a while to paste into the browser, but its not ideal.
I actually do this on purpose. The last time I checked into the plugin, it looked like it unlocked your gpg key at Firefox launch rather than at password prompt time. Also, I didn't like the fact that the plugin creator could simply send my passwords to themselves without my knowledge. Firefox and pass are big/trusted enough to not do this. But some random guy? That was outside my risk tolerance.
I'm in a similar situation and considering doing the same thing as you, for the same reasons, but I'm curious about how the offline experience is.
I'm often facing periods of bad to no connectivity, and I find the ability to lookup or even update a credential offline very useful. Not sure how much of it is possible with Vaulwarden and I couldn't find the time to try it yet.
> Trump has made tariffs a central campaign pledge in order to protect US industry. He has proposed new 10-20% tariffs on most imported foreign goods, and much higher ones on those from China.
It also disrupts JIT supply chains. Companies make decisions with certain variables not being volatile.
You now have a situation where one week the cost of a commodity is X and the following week it could be 2X. The butterfly effect across industries also cannot be predicted.
Many industries also seem to be still recovering from the pandemic period with supply of spare parts still being de-prioritised over making parts available for new units. :/
I don't think there's that much surprise at the tariffs on China; it's the tariffs on the rest of the world, especially friendly countries like Canada that are the big surprises.
Also, who believes politicians campaign pledges?
>and he knows the legal peril he faces if the White House isn’t GOP-held for the rest of his life.
This combined with the utter self-emasculation of the Republican Party to Trump's incoherent, or at best self-serving, garbage is the most worrisome thing of all.
She did, everyone just sort of... pretended she didn't. So they could have plausible deniability for voting for Trump.
See also: Harris is an elite! (Trump is more elite), Trump knows business (he's a pretty bad business man), Harris did nothing in office! (She was VP), Trump is the underdog! (He's literally already been president)
The second paragraph of your first link: “ However, she has not provided many details on her plans”
Edit: did you read these links?
“ The American people lacked any concrete policy positions from the presumptive, and then official, Democratic presidential candidate for seven weeks following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race.
Despite the absence of clarity on key issues, Vice President Kamala Harris quickly rose in the polls compared to Biden”
Speaking as someone who despises Ted Cruz to the bottom of my soul, I decided in 2016 that if Trump had decided to run as a Democrat, I would have voted for Cruz. At least he has some sincerely held beliefs that do not involve his own wallet and cruelty towards the entire world outside his inner circle.
My point being: at some point the American electorate has to take responsibility for picking the worst available person. The Democrats did not compel them to vote for Trump.
≥The Democrats did not compel them to vote for Trump.
Perhaps i didn't make my point clear. Indeed ur statement is true. I was referring to those who hated Trump but also hated Harris and so DIDNT VOTE. My point being that if the Democrats had fielded a compelling candidate many of those who didn't vote may have voted for them. Enough to win. The Democrats learned nothing when they fielded Hilary Clinton and lost. Joe Biden barely won. And only because they were sick of Trump and also how he handled Covid. Also don't forget the Democrats tried to run with Joe for a second term when he was clearly unfit. Huge turn off.
So yes, my argument is the Democrat Party is partly at fault for Trump 2.0. They did not field a worthy candidate.
"Vote Blue no matter who" is a failed strategy. And rightly so.
That's slightly revisionist. He won the popular vote by almost 5 percentage points. That's a lot. He also got more electoral college votes than GWB (both times) and Trump in 2016. His victories in the battleground states were also by a higher margin than Trump's in 2016, though still close. "Barely won" is a shade of true.
I honestly don't blame the guy for believing it was his responsibility to the country to run for re-election and keep Trump out of office. His heart was in the right place, even if the rest of him wasn't up to the task anymore.
> Also, who believes politicians campaign pledges?
People who actually understand politics and who realize that the extent to which politicians keep their campaign pledges is usually related to how their parties end up performing in the legislature, rather than just being dishonest.
Is there an established name for this LLMism?
I don't need a "Reality Check" or a "Hard Truth". The thought can be concluded without this performative honesty nonsense or the emotive hyperbole.
This probably grates me more than any other.