Lvxferre

Got someone in my family with diabetes type I, and we’ve been hearing about the “magical” solution coming “soon” since she was diagnosed with it, in her childhood, around 30 years ago.

As such I’ll keep what I see as a healthy amount of scepticism towards this piece of news.

I don’t think that there is one yet, otherwise it would get famous. Not sure though.

They’re still providing the code for people who buy the compiled software. And they are not restricting their ability to redistribute that code. So it’s still compliant with the GPL in the letter. However, if you redistribute it, they’ll refuse to service you further versions of the software.

It’s clearly a loophole because they can argue “ackshyually, we didn’t restrict you, we just don’t want further businesses with you, see ya sucker”.

I think that the RHEL example is out-of-place, since IBM (“Red Hat”) is clearly exploiting a loophole of the GNU Public License. Similar loopholes have been later addressed by e.g. the AGPL and the GPLv3*, so I expect this one to be addressed too.

So perhaps, if the GPL is “not enough”, the solution might be more GPL.

*note that the license used by the kernel is GPLv2. Cue to Android (for all intents and purposes non-free software) using the kernel, but not the rest.

Misleading name, on the same level as calling water “non-explosive hydrogen”. That said the material looks promising, as a glass replacement for some applications (the text mentions a few of them, like armoured windows).

(It is not a metal; it’s a ceramic, mostly oxygen with bits and bobs of aluminium and nitrogen. Interesting nonetheless, even if I’m picking on the name.)

Sorry for the late reply.

• 4 bananas, including the peels
• 2 cups of sugar
• 1/2 cup of veg oil
• 3 eggs
• 3 cups of breadcrumbs*
• 1 Tbsp of baking powder
• [optional] 1 cup of chocolate chips
• cinnamon and sugar (for sprinkling)

1. Blend together the bananas, sugar, veg oil and eggs, until you get a homogeneous dough. Transfer to a bowl.
2. Add breadcrumbs and baking powder to the dough, and mix it by hand for a few minutes.
3. Transfer the dough to a greased and floured cake pan. If using chocolate chips: add half of the dough to the pan, then the chips, then the other half.
4. Bake it at 180°C, for roughly 20min**.
5. Take it off the pan still hot, and sprinkle cinnamon and sugar.

*the recipe itself doesn’t use flour, only breadcrumbs. Use preferably light-coloured ones.

**don’t trust the time alone, as it varies a bit (I think that it has to do with the bananas); pierce the cake with a wooden toothpick and check if it comes off clean.

It sounds like a lot but it’s roughly the same weight in banana peels and sugar, it’s typical for this sort of jam. For reference: you could sub the peels for the same weight in strawberries, and the recipe still works.

EDIT: it is by no means something healthy to eat in large quantities. It’s a caloric bomb, just like any jam. But it works great as a bread spread, the banana peels won’t go to waste, and it packs a lot of potassium too. (Most potassium from bananas is in the peel, not in the flesh.)

I also have a banana cake recipe if anyone is interested. It uses the whole banana but you can tweak it to use just the peels.

You can also make a bread spread with them.

You could also cover them in syrup and fry them, but that requires a lot of peels, and unlike the recipe above you can’t freeze the peels, it gets a weird texture.

I don’t know (…or care, really) about USA so I’ll speak on more general grounds.

There’s a lot of stuff in social media that makes it a great soapbox for social manipulation:

• low cost, wide reaching: it’s easy to be heard
• decontextualisation: it gives more room for assumers¹ to do their shit, and make an incorrect context out of nowhere.
• virality: it’s easy to start a witch hunt. Cue to the pitchfork emporium / Twitter MC of the day.
• upvote/like-based systems: people don’t upvote your content (increasing its visibility) because you’re right, they do it because you say it confidently.
• on the Internet, nobody knows that you’re a dog: concern trolling made easy.

Now look at what @startle@toast.ooo said: “Dunno man, seems like it might be the fascists.”. IMO that user is being spot on, those five things make social media specially easy to manipulate for fascists². And they’re mostly the ones creating this dichotomisation of society³, because that’s how they’re able to congregate the nutjobs into a political discourse. Suddenly the village idiot doesn’t simply say “they’re hiding aliens from us” (stupid, but morally OK), the discourse becomes “the Jews are hiding aliens from us” (stupid and Antisemitic).

1. By “assumers” I mean individuals who are quick to draw conclusions based on little to no reasoning, evidence, or thought. This plague exists since the dawn of time, it’s just that decontextualisation gives them more room to assume shit out of nowhere.
2. Fascists often babble about “virtue signalling”, without realising that themselves are prone to signal adherence to their stupid beliefs. They don’t want to be in the receiving end of their own witch hunts.
3. By “society” I mean at the very least Western Europe plus the Americas; probably more. It is not exclusive to USA.

Given that it’s pointing straight to “no”, should I interpret “AI” as “additional irony”?

…seriously, model-based generation is in its infancy. Currently it outputs mostly trash; you need to spend quite a bit of time to sort something useful out of it. If anyone here actually believes that it’s smart, I have a bridge to sell you.

Not even parrots - the birds are actually smart.

I’m not a lawyer but I can see a good way for lawyers to use ChatGPT: tell it to list laws that are potentially related to the case, then manually check those laws to see if they apply. This would work nicely in countries with Roman law; and perhaps in countries with tribal law too (the article is from USA), as long as the model is fed with older cases for precedent.

And… really, that’s the best use for those bots IMO - asking it to sort, filter and search information from messy and large systems. Letting it write things for you, like those two lawyers did, is worse than laziness: it stinks stupidity.

It’s also immoral. The lawyer is a human being, thus someone who can be held responsible for one’s actions; ChatGPT is not and, as such, it should not be in charge of decisions that affect human lives.

It’s mostly Mastodon. The text doesn’t even mention Lemmy or Kbin.

I’m glad that Mozilla is doing this. It benefits both sides (Mozilla and the Fediverse), in a transparent way. Hopefully we get some Fediverse companion for Firefox, Thunderbird and Seamonkey.

Don’t feel stupid - the subject is complex and it took me quite a while to understand it too.

How does Bob do this? Why doesn’t he just menopause too? If menopause ensures more descendant survival wouldn’t they both do it?

Because both Bob (the old male) and Daniel (the new male, likely Bob’s son) are slightly discouraged from having new children, until they get access to more resources. That results in both ceding a bit, but not too much - with a slight lower fertility for both sides, but they don’t shut off reproduction completely.

The same won’t happen between Alice and Charlotte, because no matter what Alice does, Charlotte will keep pumping out children. So Alice keeps ceding, ceding, ceding, for the sake of her grandchildren, until she has zero fertility (i.e. menopause).

Note how Charlotte and Daniel’s roles are essential to understand why Alice and Bob behave in one or another way. Hypothetically speaking, if Daniel kept pumping out children even if this endangered Bob’s children (i.e. Daniel’s siblings), Bob would eventually be forced to undergo menopause, like Alice. That doesn’t happen though.

Why doesn’t Alice just die? // The troupe still have to find enough food for her, how is that an evolutionary advantage to keep a non breeding member around?

Alice is an adult. As such, she likely contributes with more food than the clan needs to provide her. She might not be getting new children, but by hanging around she improves the odds of survival of her grandchildren. (That’s also present in the grandmother hypothesis.)

Give this article a check. It’s explaining menopause for another species (humans), but the reasoning should be identical. There’s also this article about menopause in cetaceans, but take conclusions from it with a bit of salt because the social structure among cetaceans is different from ours (humans and chimps).

What am I missing here?

The competition with the younger generation putting the older females in a disadvantageous position, but not the older males.

Let me put it this way. Imagine the following chimp clan:

• Alice - old female
• Bob - old male
• Charlotte - young female; unrelated to both above
• Daniel - young male; Alice and Bob’s son, Charlotte’s mate

Now imagine that the clan has resources to raise exactly one child. Once it has two children, both are likely to starve.

From the male side of the things:

• If Bob has a new child, Daniel won’t have his own child, to avoid starving his [half-/full ]sibling.
• If Daniel has a child, Bob won’t have a new child, to avoid starving his grandchild.

As such, you’ll see fertility going down regardless of age, to adapt themselves to the situation.

From the female side of the things, the picture is different:

• If Alice has a new child, Charlotte will still risk it and have her own, even if the chance of the new child surviving is rather small. Because Charlotte doesn’t give a fuck about Alice’s children, they are not Charlotte’s relatives.
• If Charlotte has a child, Alice won’t have a new child, to avoid starving her grandchild.
• If Charlotte is likely to have a new child in the future, Alice won’t have a new child either - because it’ll likely die, but it’ll still reduce the odds of her potential new grandchild to survive.

As such, Alice shuts off her reproduction through menopause, and Charlotte keeps high fertility.

They don’t because the males in a clan are likely all related, as father and sons and grandsons. For them the relationship is mostly symmetric:

• young male PoV - the children of the old male are likely his half-siblings (1/4 relatedness), rarely full siblings (1/2 relatedness)
• old male PoV - the children of the young male are his grandchildren (1/4 relatedness)

It becomes the same explanation once you take into account that younger females don’t care about the rest of the clan - because they are not her relatives. Only the older females have some reason to shut down the mechanism.

A related link was posted in this comm not too long ago.. It tries to address why female chimps would live past reproductive age, to begin with.

The catch here is that adult male chimps stay in the clan of their parents, while the female ones migrate to other clans. And this creates an asymmetry between old vs. newer adult females in the same clan:

• from the PoV of an older female, the children of younger females are likely also the children of her sons, thus her grandchildren.
• from the PoV of a newer female, the children of the older females are not relatives.

In situations where food is short, it’s advantageous for the clan to have less children: every new child spreads the food resources thinner, and puts at risk the lives of the other children. But that pressure to stop having children only affects the older female, because it puts at risk the lives of her grandchildren; for the newer females it’s more like “why would I stop having children? For the sake of my in-laws? Screw them!”.

Evolution solved this through menopause; you got the older females still alive, gathering resources, and taking care of the children of the clan, but they aren’t bearing new children.

waaAAAH watch the tone! It hurts my precious, OH SO PRECIOUS, fee fees! I behave like a clown, but dontcha dare to call me a clown!

I know that you’ve been banned, but damn, I hope that you’re aware that you’ve become a laughing stock.

Troll harder. And preferably in Reddit dammit.

It’s kind of funny how users here post off-topic content, effectively littering communities, and then complain when someone cleans it up. This thread is an excellent example of that - even if the moron’s complain about censorship was somehow valid (it isn’t), this is a community about privacy!

And “here” I mean the internet. It is not exclusive to Lemmy. Or forum sites. Or social media. Fuck, I bet that we could even find offline examples of this.

It is both things - statistics on random events. Einstein would argue that God doesn’t play dice with the universe, but it seems that the gods play poker with living things instead.