Well, I’m not a code monkey, between dyslexia and an aging brain. But if it’s anything like the tiny bit of coding I used to be able to do (back in the days of basic and pascal), you don’t really have to pore over every single line. Only time that’s needed is when something is broken. Otherwise, you’re scanning to keep oversight, which is no different than reviewing a human’s code that you didn’t write.

Look at it like this; we automated assembly of machines a long time ago. It had flaws early on that required intense supervision. The only difference here on a practical level is about how the damn things learned in the first place. Automating code generation is way more similar to that than llms that generate text or images that aren’t logical by nature.

If the code used to train the models was good, what it outputs will be no worse in scale than some high school kid in an ap class stepping into their first serious challenges. It will need review, but if the output is going to be open source to begin with, it’ll get that review even if the project maintainers slip up.

And being real, lutris has been very smooth across the board while using the generated code so far. So if he gets lazy, it could go downhill; but that could happen if he gets lazy with his own code.

Another concept that I am more familiar with, that does relate. Writing fiction can take months. Editing fiction usually takes days, and you can still miss stuff (my first book has typos and errors to this day because of the aforementioned dyslexia and me not having a copy editor).

My first project back in the eighties in basic took me three days to crank out during the summer program I was in. The professor running the program took an hour to scan and correct that code.

Maybe I’m too far behind the various languages, but I really can’t see it being a massively harder proposition to scan and edit the output of an llm.

Yeah, this is actually one of the good things a technology like this can do.

He’s dead right, in terms of slop, if it’s someone with training and experience using a tool, it doesn’t matter if that tool is vim or claude. It ain’t slop if it’s built right.

Well, security isn’t 100% the same as private, if you meant here as in this C/, rather than here as in this post. I tend to favor security over privacy, when only one is possible, but there is a small difference in how they apply to phones.

But, yeah, afaik, rooting a device decreases security. But if you can’t/don’t want to jump through hoops, not having it is also a decrease in entry level personal choice. But that’s true of any android rom, not just graphene. It’s just that graphene is explicitly against root because of the holes it can cause.

Again, on my end, root isn’t currently high value. The things I would do with root access aren’t worth the extra hassle and decrease in efficacy of graphene to do what it is intended to do.

Mind you, there are devices I would root if I weren’t too lazy, for a small number of options. Just being able to easily use older apks is becoming a huge pain in the ass, and it’s annoying enough that my irritation will eventually outweigh my laziness on a couple of devices, just not those I use for anything beyond playing games and writing fiction (where keyboard choice matters a lot on android, and my keyboard of choice is 32bit based, which you have to root for two of my devices to fix).

Anyway, tangents aside, I appreciate your extra detail :)

For anyone coming along and starting to get riled up…

Go for it! Lemme get some popcorn!

100% love it.

I was worried that I would try it, not be able to use it for my needs, and be stuck hating what android has turned into, but not yet able to jump ship for linux phones (because moving to apple is as bad as what android is turning into).

Instead, graphene reminded me of why I loved android in the first place. It genuinely works so much smoother, I don’t have to worry about much of anything at all, but can relatively freely do whatever the fuck I want on my device.

As usual, you do have to be aware that some apps just will not cooperate with any OS changes that aren’t OEM. And graphene isn’t root friendly. So that’s why the “relatively freely” is present in the previous paragraph. Within those bounds though, holy crap is it a better experience than anything else I’ve ever used since my lgg3 was new. Faster, better battery life, and zero bloat to deal with. That’s compared to pixels I had fucked with that weren’t the same model as the one I was so generously given me by a great friend. Can’t say for sure that if graphene was available on my other devices that it would be better in terms of speed and battery life, since that’s hardware dependent to a great degree.

But I can say that when I fucked around on pixels newer than the one I have, that they were less responsive and drained battery faster doing similar tasks, despite having newer hardware.

I’ve said it elsewhere before, but my experience with graphene pissed me off. It makes me so angry that this experience isn’t the default experience for all devices, out of the box. I hate that until the recent announcement, that having this experience meant being limited to the shitty choices Google made for pixels (like no sd card, not the chipset or anything like that). I’m hopeful that the Motorola option is realistic for me once this phone has met its end of life. I’m riding it until the wheels fall off though lol.

Legit, if you aren’t limited by work requirements regarding apps you have to use, and your bank app isn’t pissy, don’t hesitate. I haven’t been this happy with any device since I put lineage on an old tablet years ago and it fit my needs so perfectly I couldn’t believe it. Even my beloved g3 didn’t work as well with any rom as this pixel does with graphene.

Afaik, nobody knows where/when the myth started because it started organically, rather than being something like bumblebees not being aerodynamically sound, where there was poorly explained information that got spread from that point.

The most popular theory of the origin is that since veins look blue, and thus were drawn as such in anatomy illustrations, the idea got spread through wide ranging multi point origins. I’ve seen people argue for the veins looking blue as the genesis, with the idea being that someone asked why blue veins ran red when cut. But I’ve seen it argued that it wasn’t until the illustrations came along and faulty information was needed to explain that that it spread far enough to actually be taught by people that should have known better (like some folks, I ran into the idea in jr high, knew it was wrong because of family with medical training, and got in trouble for trying to say so).

But I have looked a few times over the years to see if I could run down a definitive origin story, and never have. Mind you, me looking involved searching for articles about it, rather than trying to run down historical references direct because I don’t have that kind of access.

Jeans? Kinda depends on the use.

Most days, I don’t do shit that dirties anything but underwear, which gets changed at least daily. So in most senses, any given pair of jeans can go weeks without accumulating anything but dead skin cells, some skin oil, and some of my pimp juice.

That being said, I ain’t going to wear the same pair more than three days unless my back is so fucked up that changing them isn’t realistic.

Given that I’ve accumulated jeans over the years in various sizes as my body changed post-disability, I have enough pairs that I could hypothetically change pants every day and not wear the same pair twice in a month. Mind you, I’m bigger than I was for some of them and can’t wear them. I’m also smaller than I was for some of them, and even a belt can’t make them comfortable to wear for long. So I have maybe a dozen pair that are in rotation, plus a couple that are for when I’m doing something really grungy (like OP’s mom).

Assuming my brain isn’t fucked (and I’m only on lemmy to keep myself from going nuts until I can head to the hospital for a family member, so it’s fucked), that would work out to any given pair being washed ten-ish times a year? I think? It’s math, so I’m probably wrong.

I do know that most months, I only have to do two loads of laundry that isn’t underwear. If I only wore jeans, the math would work out, but there are days I don’t wear jeans, so I dunno.

Man, if I ever find my books via their search, I’ll be so hyped

Wellllll, kinda.

There’s a no, in that retarded has the strictest meaning of being an inborn developmental barrier rather than an acquired one, but it has had so many usages over time that I don’t think that more limited usage matters.

So, it’s a qualified yes.

Animals other than humans can definitely suffer chronic tbi (traumatic brain injury) effects, with symptoms ranging from mild to severe enough it would cruel to not euthanize.

Dogs in particular can develop problems that would match colloquial usage of retarded for sure. I’ve personally seen dogs that took bad hits from cars have worse effects, but having memory losses, apparent cognitive loss, and definitely coordination loss are pretty common with even milder head trauma in dogs and other animals.

However, that’s not to say it always has to be from major trauma. You can have issues with repeated minor injury, in humans and animals.

It’s unlikely the level of play you’ve described would be a problem though. Just running into things on zoomies isn’t likely to cause the kind of bouncing around of the brain it takes to cause neurological deficit. It could, though I suspect it would take longer than most dogs live

That was my exact thought :)

That’s da rudest thing I’ve seen in years

Well, obviously it depends on which myth/legend/author is in play.

That being said, vampire myths were not prone to syringe teeth. The bite opens an artery, or just tears a patch out, and the blood comes out either under its own pressure, or assisted by sucking (I vant to suck your blood).

Typically, and I haven’t read every vampire fiction piece so ymmv, when syringe teeth are used, it’s for injection rather than extraction. Typically some kind of anaesthetic and/or blood thinner, with consumption still being via the mouth rather than the teeth.

Werewolf (or other therianthropes) shedding is less clear cut. In myths, I never saw any mention of it at all. At most, shedding skin entirely, or otherwise leaving behind parts of one shape when transforming was involved, but that was in creatures far away from what could be called werewolf. So, shedding hair like a dog or cat does isn’t part of traditional lore.

Unlike vampires, however, it does appear in modern fiction. Most often as a joke or aside, but it is present. The apparent reasoning being linked to how long the individual stays in their wolf/animal form.

In other words, it seems most writers have an assumption that the “wolf” won’t shed unless it spends enough time in that shape to have hair reach the end of its growth cycle. However, I don’t recall any examples of that applying in reverse. When in human form, it’s rarely covered, but the default is that weres who only shift monthly do have normal human processes, including shedding hair as it cycles.

But there are references to both here and there (please don’t ask me to remember which books, I have read way too many urban fantasy series to keep track of exactly which author uses what system). Wolves shedding when in wolf form even when only in it overnight does happen. As does humans not shedding hair, or regrowing hair they cut or otherwise lost, after returning to human form.

When it comes to this kind of stuff, there can be difficulty sorting out older myths from those that get passed around now due to stuff like dracula, the old universal movies, etc. Most of the scholarly, historical information is hard to find nowadays. It’s buried on the internet, and local libraries are more likely to have secondary works interpreting old lore than direct translations of the small amount of written records of such legends. But it is out there, if you have reason and motivation to slog through shitty ai search results.

Here follows geek/writer stuff, be warned.

Now, personally, I’ve used both shapeshifters and vampires in both written fiction and rpg play. My choices tended towards a time based factor for shedding. Since hair takes time to be shed in humans or other animals, my default is that any hair or fur is “new” upon the shape change. Thus, shedding would only be a factor after extended time in a shape. Indeed, one version of were-being I use has reduced aging because of that. Each form ages slightly slower than normal by virtue of the thing that causes the power (in my main worlds, it’s a magically linked quasi-virus symbiote), and each change hits pause on the other form, leading to life expectancy into the two hundreds or more. However, they would also shed less because the symbiote prefers a stasis when possible. It’s linked to fast healing.

Vampires in my main fiction and trrpg worlds are also symbiote virus based. Part of that is being able to inject a bolus of the virus through the fangs at will (and sometimes involuntarily), so fangs are essentially syringes in that setting. I have played around with the fangs being able to suck up blood, but it isn’t really viable on a “realism” level (yeah, it’s fantasy, but I try not to hand wave bullshit when it isn’t essential). The mechanisms for sucking parts in real world animals/creatures just don’t match what could work in human sized fangs, much less alongside injection.

That being said, my main universe has a vampire planet. And there are things there that can both suck and inject via the same body part. Larger predators there, which originated before the symbiote got there, developed fangs capable of doing the job. Humans that arrived there were not dominant as a species for quite some time. The large arachnid-ish predators there were particularly fond of human juices. Even after alterations by the symbiote, it took time before the new vampires had the power to be on equal footing, and much longer before they got powerful enough to dominate the planet.

Anyways, that’s the geek gush over lol

Sterility isn’t necessary for safe water. You only need it to be pathogen free, and lack dangerous contaminants.

So, beyond that, it kinda depends on what you think “clean” means.

I took a quick gander at how Ireland’s drinking/tap water is regulated.

Assuming whatever location is actually following regulations and standards, y’all got some damn nice water out of the tap. The EU regulations are great. There shouldn’t be anything pathogenic at any concentration to worry about. Since water there is treated, I doubt you’d have much of anything reaching your tap at all. You’d have more particulates than anything else, some trace minerals (which is a good thing), maybe some organics here and there (think bits of algae swept along).

Think about it like aquariums. You don’t want sterility; you want a healthy, flourishing biome because all those bacteria eat bad things.

It’s the same in water pipes; you get a good biofilm growing, and pathogens aren’t going to be able to set up shop, even if they do get past whatever treatment is going on at the source. I’ve even seen arguments against chlorination in water treatment because it’s indiscriminate. It can kill off the friendly stuff and make the system as a whole less resilient to unexpected blooms of something pathogenic.

If you ever set up ponds, you actively encourage bacterial growth as part of the process. There’s aquaculture guides where between the right plants, fish, and bacteria, you can end up with water so clean you’d want to drink it, and can, even starting from sewage contaminated water.

If you then slap a filter on to catch particulates, you’re left with something that’s more pure than if you sterilized the source water by chemical or other means.

Anyway, the EU standards for drinking water are top tier. Go look them up, it’s a really comprehensive and science driven set of standards. If your locale is even half-assing things, you’ve got great water indeed

I do not hate myself for loving her.

Was and is one of the most badass rock artists out there

There’s only twelve lemmy users anyway.

There was a dude on reddit that bigot watch kept nailing because of that.

Dude used the same patterns and words, thinking that switching user names would matter.

But, what if I use my real name and just lie all the time?

Like the comment protist copied from Wikipedia, it’s generally considered to be a mix of coming out with the truth, and having skeletons in the closet. Back in the eighties, that was the explanation I heard most often when hanging out with gay folks.

Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s absolutely factual, I’m not aware of anyone that’s really dug into it with serious historical rigor. But it is at least the accepted explanation. And it makes sense, so I’ve never gone digging beyond talking to people alive and active during the early gay rights era of the seventies.

Have you heard the original Dolly Parton version of I will always love you? She’s got a less forceful voice in general, and her version was a much gentler delivery on top of that.

Not saying anything about you liking or not liking the song, just curious if it’s Whitney that’s the problem, the arrangement, or the song itself.

Honestly, I tend to be pretty capable of tolerating songs I don’t like. It’s artists and a small range of genres that give me trouble.

About the only song I can think of that comes close was that first backstreet boys song. Can’t remember the name, but it was the one that was all over the radio from their first album.

I liked other songs, but that one was such a generic pile of dreck that it came close to being intolerable from the beginning, and eventually got there. But even that, at first, it was just something I didn’t like and disliked strongly, but I could sit through it if necessary. It took a week or two before it reached nails-on-chalkboard levels.

Now, genre wise, contemporary christian just grates on me. Even the songs that are otherwise almost listenable suffer from the bland composition and empty lyrics that make them annoying. Since I’ve also dealt with people in the industry around the genre, including performers, knowing that those lyrics are utter bullshit to the vast majority of the idiots singing them makes it a very unpleasant thing.

CC suffers from the same cookie cutter writing that Nashville country does, but lacks the redeeming qualities of at least being catchy if you don’t pay attention to the lyrics.

Which, cookie cutter country isn’t something I can handle a lot of at once. But I can tolerate it.

Then again, I listen to death and black metal regularly, so I know damn good and well that what one person can enjoy is abrasive to others, and vice versa. So I tend not to judge the listener by what they listen to.