also I believe it helps you track save games. I have multiple Linux boxes I play GOG games on using Heroic launcher and save game tracking is a big issue (maybe there's a way to do this with Heroic, idk). But I think Galaxy would help here.
I don’t have a good list of which games I validated in parallels and which I didn’t (since I’ve stopped gaming for the last 6 months or so).
And I do heavily play boomer shooters so it’s likely I was impressed by performance of less demanding games.
Doom Eternal is one AAA game I definitely would want to play in Parallels but can’t because the Vulkan version is not new enough. I’m confident though that Microsoft could bring these APIs up-to-date on an “ARM PC” though, if it has capable 3D hardware.
I haven’t done any objective tests but I frequently run Windows 11 on ARM via Parallels on macOS and - it’s kinda insane (subjectively) how fast it is. Emulated x86 code is pretty fast there as well - I can easily get a solid 60 FPS on some x86 steam games as well.
This appears to be an architectural vulnerability where a speculative execution side channel similar to Spectre can be utilized within Safari or any other browser. The specifics of which environment is exploitable comes down to the specifics of the JavaScript-based gadget they use to trigger/measure this side channel. It may be in the linked paper which I haven’t read yet.
From a cursory review of the FAQs on the page it appears one mitigation might be to only keep one browser tab open at a time? They appear to be using timers and a cache eviction gadget to infer the state of other browser tabs/processes so it’s unclear what they can recover if you are not concurrently having a session to a particular site outside the gadget execution context. ???
So from an attackers perspective nowadays it sounds like focusing on encryption weaknesses and/or hardware issues (e.g. glitching) or firmware vulnerabilities is the right place to look?
This is an interesting thought and I have to agree it’s a legitimate issue. I have also considered something similar - that in the near future, if all software is designed with AI, or “generated” rather than explicitly engineered, we would certainly reap some benefits from that but we would also cease understanding how anything actually works. Obviously no one person fully understands the abstractions we have currently engineered when considering the totality.. but at least currently we have them.
I share this opinion as well, I think. I’m looking at any CRUD app I’ve worked on and thinking: this is just a specification over a database. Same with most other software but the web and most mobile apps seem ripe to just become generated patterns.
I think I agree with you on how I felt at the end of the post, but at the beginning and most of the way through, I found myself generally agreeing. But I want to look past the “bitcoin” switch after the bait because I generally agree with the author on most points.
Especially as I have delved more into how LLMs actually function and are trained, a lot of the magic in e.g. ChatGPT has evaporated for me, but in a good way. The performance of larger models like GPT-3.5 or 4 is still consistently impressive, to me, but as I’ve increased my understanding I do believe that censorship poses a greater threat than the models themselves.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the law or article, but wasn’t the author implying that the act of inference on an LLM model itself is a sort of “statistical experiment”:
> In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times.
And so the mean in this case is “perceived like a real human”?
This is an interesting idea but is it feasible? What does “filter these vectors” mean? In the context of deep models are we talking about embedding specific models, weights, parameters, etc at some point in memory with the hardware? Are we taking about filtering input generally and globally (on a general purpose system)?
Gonna leave my footprint on this one too. Here’s my take since my favorite app on my Meta Quest 2 is actually Immersed (for virtual desktop / multi monitor setups): I’m less interested in either Apple or Meta here because I think Apples Vision Pro ideas just reinforce what we’re being told repeatedly: the industry wants to move away from screens, and the future is not screens. We have two big things on the near horizon now: AR/VR and AI. The industry as a whole will push these technologies until they are the norm. Smartphones, PCs, tablets and laptops (maybe even TVs?) will become legacy technology, but they will of course live on in emulated forms (a “window”). Conversational and ubiquitous computing will be the future, like it or not.