To be fair: You should refer to these as Type-C cables, as they carry things that are not USB protocol.
The sole exception should be made for "charge only" cables, which can, and should, be referred to as "wired for USB 2.0". These cables "shouldn't" exist, but I also don't want to buy a $30 cable just to charge my phone.
About 10 years ago, it became "common knowledge" about mainboards that onboard sound has become good enough for almost anybody. It has never been true for me, maybe because my recent mainboards have been lower middle class (AMD B350 / B650) largely chosen for good CPU power converters.
Because my two (PC) laptops since 2020 have both had really damn good headphone outputs, I can believe that some good / expensive mainboards have it, too. It's not exotic technology anymore. Meanwhile, my desktop PC has a 20+ years old M-Audio prosumer card that also sounds great. (Now rigged with a PCIe -> PCI converter card off AliExpress)
Between these DACs and / or Chi-Fi class D amps (some of them with built-in DACs), nowadays you can spend 90% of the Hi-Fi budget on speakers. It's incredible how good electronics you can get for how cheap these days.
Bluetooth sucks against the raw codec of a soundcard. If you want lossy music, that's it.
But given autotune trends and how genz-ers grew up with shitty early smartphone loudspeakers and not much better BT ones they aren't used to proper music and their tastes are rot forever.
big tech companies are 50 companies in a trench coat, there isn't some great aligning directive. Feels like some random side project some employees felt like making.
Welcome to 2026's reality, most new music is already AI-generated. I don't like it, but it is what it is. YT Music is already full of AI slop, those tools aren't changing that.
If anything it gives Google control of the entire production->sale->delivery process.
I'm honestly not seeing a downside for Google here, can you elaborate?
Most new music by what definition? I'm certain more stuff is being churned out by these automated tools than genuine human creativity, but that doesn't make it economically relevant if the only use it's seeing is random high school kids' YouTube channels. It's not seeing streams on services, it's not bringing in revenue once created.
I just keep reporting AI slop videos (incl music) on YT, and sometimes the videos or even entire channel vanish. I hope I'm contributing to this process to keep YT safe, but I'm just one guy, and they probably have a much bigger effort internally.
The downside for Google is, ultimately, the death of the company. Nobody wants AI slop, and go out of their way to actively avoid it and punish companies that promote it. Google already is running a huge risk by pushing Gemini into every service, and permanently burning customers and users with it.
Microsoft is already seeing the downside of trying to Copilot everything. Their software is now partly slop, shit randomly breaks, companies cancel Azure/Office subscriptions and move to on-prem, FOSS, etc. They've pumped their brakes quite a lot, but the damage may be too great to mitigate now.
If Google wants to lose money in the long run, then by all means, please continue.
The people in charge here don’t give a fuck about the long term.
Reap as much profits for yourself as you can before everything inevitably collapses - that’s the prevailing current trend.
Let the lizard brain take over and just feel good in the moment, why worry about the future.
As the paper mentions, this particular routine was the work of Alexei Sibidanov, though Zimmermann seems to have been maintaining it since it was contributed. (Sibidanov doesn't work for Red Hat either, though.)
I now own a QD OLED that has a processing+display latency of 1.21 ms in 240hz, 1.83 in 60hz, and an unfortunate 7ms with 120hz + black frame insertion.
Displays are no longer the problem anymore, we're back to CRT speeds again.
Asus ROG PG32UCDM3, uses a Samsung 4th gen QD-OLED internally.
Its also the sibling model of the MSI MPG 322UR, and an upcoming unnamed Gigabyte model, so you have options if you want to get one.
Samsung sells their entire panel assembly (panel, polarizer and protection layer, carbon bonded heatsink, and unified controller assembly, but not the power supply) as one package deal, and all the monitors measure identically and have near identical feature sets.
I have mine setup to neuter HDR a bit in exchange for maximum contrast and no HDR thermal/power dimming.
* image -> HDR settings -> true black 500, not gaming or console (both peak at 1k)
* image -> HDR settings -> adjustable HDR (required for uniformed brightness)
* image -> uniform brightness on (this prevents SDR content from triggering ABL dimming)
* image -> vivid pixel: 0 (simple non-sharpening contrast enhancement)
* OLED care -> screen saver -> all three dimming controls: off (outer vignettes to prioritize super-brights in the middle, global dims entire screen to preserve super-brights, screen dims if nothing moves for awhile)
* system setup -> power setting -> performance mode
And in Windows, System -> Display -> HDR -> SDR content brightness of 31 hits 120 nits (the recommended SDR white value from ISO 3664, Rec 2100, etc).
If you're on SDR, set sRGB Cal mode and don't touch anything else in Image or Color, and it hard sets brightness to 120 nits. It is perfectly calibrated for the sRGB whitepoint, sRGB primaries, and even correctly does the sRGB piecewise gamma instead of the incorrect 2.4. Couldn't ask for more.
Oh, and the best part? I cannot calibrate this with a colorimeter and improve it... I have finally discovered a monitor that can actually do its goddamned job accurately.
There is a difference between Chinese model and Chinese service.
Your company most likely is banning the use of foreign services, but it wouldn't make sense to ban the model, since the model would be ran locally.
I wouldn't allow my employees to use a foreign service either if my company had specific geographic laws it had to follow (ie, fin or med or privacy laws, such as the ones in the EU).
That said, I'm not sure I'd allow them to use any AI product either, locally inferred on-prem or not: I need my employees to _not_ make mistakes, not automate mistake making.
I'm not sure who Josh Gottheimer of NJ is, but he seems to be one of those stealth "fake" Democrats. Too centrist to be a Republican, but also too centrist to be part of the DSA.
He seems to also support H.R. 7540.
I think the Democrats in his district need to seriously consider primarying him and replace him with someone that doesn't bend to foreign or corporate whims.
I really think left-right and honest-dishonest are useless dimensions to evaluate Congress members on. The job practically requires ideological fuzziness and truth stretching to get anything done. This is a feature: legislatures that require high ideological purity tend to become rubber stamps. DPRK is a good example.
My belief is that to a large extent the art of politics is the art of bothsidesing and rationalizing away your integrity for common aims. And that when applied correctly, these common aims can be used to benefit the public. Look at systems where you can't bothesides (also known as finding common ground and compromising) or rationalize the integrity of other members (also known as acting in good faith). I suspect you will not find the results of these political bodies to have preferable results to the American Congress!
Honestly, I'm from NJ and I'm still shocked they actually charged Gold Bar Bob for what he did. He's so influential in NJ politics, I thought they'd let him get away with it like he did all the other bribes he's taken over the years. I guess literal gold bars from Egypt with obvious provenance was just too on the nose.
The article doesn't actually give a coherent answer on why.
People would generally claim "lazyness", as that is the Apple way. Why fix code when you can just sell new phones?
The actual answer is plausible deniability. Closed source software often leaks metadata in hard to discover ways so governments can deprive citizens of their rights under the law, and then claim "whoops, we didn't clean up correctly, our bad!".
Apple, like every other major tech company, goes along with it when nudged in the right direction.
In some places in the source code they claim sole ownership of the code, when it is highly derivative of that in llama.cpp (having started its life as a llama.cpp frontend). They keep it the same license, however, MIT.
There is no reason to use Ollama as an alternative to llama.cpp, just use the real thing instead.
If it’s MIT code derived from MIT code, in what way is its openness ”quasi”? Issues of attribution and crediting diminish the karma of the derived project, but I don’t see how it diminishes the level of openness.
FOSS licensing can only exist in terms of Copyright. Without Copyright, you cannot license FOSS. If something has an incorrect Copyright attribution, then the license can be viewed as invalid until this deficiency has been corrected (obv. depending on local laws, etc).
On top of this, it would not be unreasonable for the numerous authors of llama.cpp to issue DMCA takedown requests if Ollama is unwilling to correct it.
I remember when it came out a little over a year ago, and its just as wrong as it is today as it was then.
reply