It shouldn’t be hard to implement the APIs, the problem would be sourcing the models to sit behind them. You can’t just steal them off Windows or you will have Copyright Problems presumably. I guess you could try and train clones on Windows against the Windows model results?

So Copilot Runtime is… Windows bundling a bunch of models like an OCR model and an image generation model, and then giving your program an API to call them.

It sounds like nobody actually understood what you want.

You have a non-ZFS boot drive, and a big ZFS pool, and you want to save an image of the boot drive to the pool, as a backup for the boot drive.

I guess you don’t want to image the drive while booted off it, because that could produce an image that isn’t fully self-consistent. So then the problem is getting at the pool from something other than the system you have.

I think what you need to do is find something else you can boot that supports ZFS. I think the Ubuntu live images will do it. If not, you can try something like re-installing the setup you have, but onto a USB drive.

Then you have to boot to that and zfs import your pool. ZFS is pretty smart so it should just auto-detect the pool structure and where it wants to be mounted, and you can mount it. Don’t do a ZFS feature upgrade on the pool though, or the other system might not understand it. It’s also possible your live kernel might not have a new enough ZFS to understand the features your pool uses, and you might need to find a newer one.

Then once the pool is mounted you should be able to dd your boot drive block device to a file on the pool.

If you can’t get this to work, you can try using a non-ZFS-speaking live Linux and dding your image to somewhere on the network big enough to hold it, which you may or may not have, and then booting the system and copying back from there to the pool.

Praise be to our lord and savior the UEFI Forum, that we might not all meet such a dismal fate.

This /c/ is catnip for lemmy users.

Welcome to /c/[email protected]

Zuckerberg Did Nothing Wrong

I’m concerned that the narrative that what Facebook was trying to achieve here was wrong or bad is itself user-hostile, and pushes in favor of the non-fiduciary model of software.

Facebook paid people to let them have access to those people’s communications with Snap, Inc., via Snapchat’s app. This is so that Facebook could do their analytics magic and try and work out how often Snapchat users tend to do X, Y, or Z. Did they pay enough? Who knows. Would you take the deal? Maybe not. Was this a totally free choice without any influence from the creeping specter of capitalist immiseration? Of course not. But it’s not some unusually nefarious plot when a person decides to let a company watch them do stuff! Privacy isn’t about never being allowed to reveal what you are up to. Some people like to fill out those little surveys they get in the mail.

Now, framing this as Facebook snooping on Snapchat’s data concedes that a person’s communications from their Snapchat app to Snapchat HQ are Snapchat’s data. Not that person’s data, to do with as they please. If the user interferes with the normal operation of one app at the suggestion of someone who runs a different app, this framing would see that as two apps having a fight, with user agency nowhere to be found. I think it is important to see this as a user making a choice about what their system is going to do. Snapchat on your phone is entirely your domain; none of it belongs to Snap, Inc. If you want to convince it to send all your Snapchat messages to the TV in Zuckerberg’s seventh bathroom in exchange for his toenail clippings, that’s your $DEITY-given right.

User agency is under threat already, and we should not write it away just to try and make Facebook look bad.

“Yeah this sounds like a Phil Nash sort of problem, I’ll just stick him in here.”

The rust compiler produces a flawless understanding of your code, and then quits out because understanding that code is a Nightly-only feature and you’re using the stable build.

I think you can keep doing the SMB shares and use an overlay filesystem on top of those to basically stack them on top of each other, so that server1/dir1/file1.txt and server2/dir1/file2.txt and server3/dir1/file3.txt all show up in the same folder. I’m not sure how happy that is when one of the servers just isn’t there though.

Other than that you probably need some kind of fancy FUSE application to fake a filesystem that works the way you want. Maybe some kind of FUES-over-Git-Annex system exists that could do it already?

Be the tricorder you wish to see in the world

You might want to try Openstack. It is set up for running a multi-tenant cloud.

Seems to not be paying off though; having whole communities and instances close is pretty inconvenient.

Why does Lemmy even ship its own image host? There are plenty of places to upload images you want to post that are already good at hosting images, arguably better than pictrs is for some applications. Running your own opens up whole categories of new problems like this that are inessential to running a federated link aggregator. People selfhost Lemmy and turn around and dump the images for “their” image host in S3 anyway.

We should all get out of the image hosting business unless we really want to be there.

It isn’t enshitification in the sense of trying to make the platform make money, but it is throwing up new roadblocks in the way of using the platform. It makes it harder to just show up, register, and post code. It creates multiple tiers of users who have different privileges on the platform. And from here it would be easier to move to, with some of the same justifications, some sort of requirement to pay for code hosting.

One day to learn how to make stuff in React, one day to learn the degree to which the React developers despise you.

I actually kind of like the error handling. Code should explain why something was a problem, not just where it was a problem. You get a huge string of “couldn’t foobar the baz: target baz was not greebleable: no greeble provider named fizzbuzz”, and while the strings are long as hell they are much better explanations for a problem than a stack trace is.

Because you want to know if the first half of the code works at all before you write the whole second half.

Finding all the bits that will be used by the second half and changing the declarations to just expressions is a bunch of extra work. As is adding placeholder code to use the declared variables.

That could work fine, probably? Or you could use it on the same machine as other stuff.

ZFS zRAID is pretty good for this I think. You hook up the drives from one “pool” to a new machine, and ZFS can detect them and see that they constitute a pool and import them.

I think it still stores some internal references to which drives are in the pool, but if you add the drives from the by-ID directory when making the pool it ought to be using stable IDs at least across Linux machines.

There’s also always Git Annex for managing redundancy at the file level instead of inside the filesystem.

Has anyone ever seen a “woman from birth”? Like a whole-ass adult woman popping out of somebody not appreciably larger than her? Ready for a beauty pageant at zero minutes old?

Completely independent of gender, people should know that “women” are adults and have zero overlap with “children” or especially “newborn infants”.

Or is this a bad translation from the Italian?