I self host a bunch of apps that have SSO as enterprise feature. i want to invite my family/friends into these apps, i don't wanna spend additional 20 000$ for the SSO part, but it be real sweet if i could use it.
It would eliminate so much questions like "hey.. what was my login to X?" or "can you reset my password to Y" if i could just use SSO.
Works if everyone has the same permissions in the app but you might still need a shared login as well. I've done this for e.g. metabase before but it is not the same as a native oidc integration.
I'm not an Apple fan by any means. But I think it's fair to say that Apple Silicon and actually useful ARM-powered laptops was a major hardware innovation.
Couldn't agree more.
And recently they have mostly increased frequency to stay competitive, at the expense of heat, throttling and to a minor extent battery life (not that much because some efficiency was gained elsewhere).
They look good on specific workflows because they are focused on specific accelerators and code path optimisation that they know is more beneficial to the way most of their customers use their hardware.
But their lead is hardly uniform and there are still plenty of things where they are barely doing better than intel, if at all.
And their GPUs that are supposedly good don't perform that well outside of benchmarks, efficient, surely but not exactly something to rave about.
When you look at it from a high vantage point, there have been a lot of compromises to be made to get mostly efficiency/battery life, the transition wasn't cheap and some stuff will forever stay stuck.
With the progress of Intel/AMD it doesn't feel like that big of a win.
And this is also why ARM isn't working so well on the Windows side. So much to give up for not that significant gains.
At least we know it was mostly about architecture optimisation and access to better lithography processes. Eventually they will all converge to similar performances and we will regret the code compatibility. Some big software houses (like Autodesk) basically got vindicated for not building software for macOS, it's not a really good sentiment for the Mac long term.
It's not clear if any of it matters because clearly, they would rather sell iPads with a software distribution monopoly in the form of their App Store. Maybe with EU ruling they will change their mind, but I doubt it, as long as they can maintain their marketing...
Good. This might suck for opensource devs, but for normies that might get a random exe link this is good. I've gotten numerous phone calls from relatives when they try to run some unrecognized app, most of the time is benign, but on few occasions it was something malicious.
It's a heavy tax to protect the ignorant. I hear things like this and think how I've been using a computer for nearly 4 decades and it's never once happened to me. Maybe those types of people need to re-evaluate their technology choices (maybe iPad is more appropriate) instead of taxing the entire ecosystem to protect them from themselves.
low income countries don't have the money for iPads. My parents run on a 300 Euro computer bought 5 years ago. My dad is technical enough to get around a computer, but he's in his 60s now. My mom can open Facebook and youtube. Sometimes either of them downloads stuff, and opens them. So your solution is "make millions consumers spend $$ on overpriced hardware and even more closed off system, so few hundred open source devs don't spend 500$ to verify their app (which they will have to do if they want to release on the iOS platform either way)"
Ain't no way.
If you count the number of ignorant people who use Windows versus the people like you, you'll quickly realize the tax is very cheap for the level of protection it offers to the number of people it offers it to.
Even today, leading LLMS Claude 3.7 and ChatGPT 4, take your questions as "you've made mistake, fix it" instead of answering the question. People consider a much broader context of the situation, your body language, facial expressions, and can come up with unusual solutions to specific situations and can explore vastly more things than an LLM.
And the thing when it comes to therapy is, a real therapist doesn't have to be prompted and can auto adjust to you without your explicit say so.
They're not overly affirming, can stop you from doing things and say no to you. LLMs are the opposite of that.
Also, as a lay person how do i know the right prompts for <llm of the week> to work correctly?
Don't get me wrong, i would love for AI to be on par or better than a real life therapist, but we're not there yet, and i would advise everyone against using AI for therapy.
Even if the tech was there, for appropriate medical use those models would also have to be strenously tested and certified, so that a known-good version is in use. Cf. the recent "personality" changes in a ChatGPT upgrade. Right now, none of these tools is regulated sufficiently to set safe standards there.
I am not talking about a layperson building their own therapist agent from scratch. I'm talking about an expert AI engineer and therapist working together and taking their time to create them. Claude 3.7 will not act in a default way given appropriate instructions. Claude 3.7 can absolutely come up with unusual solutions. Claude 3.7 can absolutely tell you "no".
Have you seen this scenario ("an expert AI engineer and therapist working together" to create a good therapy bot) actually happen, or are you just confident that it's doable?
I've built a therapy agent running my own agent framework with Claude 3.7 based on research into CBT (research aided by my agent). I have verified that the core definition and operation of therapy sessions matches descriptions of CBT that I have been able to find online.
I am very experienced with creating prompts and agents, and good at research, and I believe that my agent along with the journaling tool would be more effective than many "average" human therapists.
You're verifying your own claims. That's not good enough.
> research aided by my agent
Also not good enough.
As an example: Yesterday i asked Claude and ChatGPT to design a circuitry that monitors pulses form S0 power meter interface. It designed a circuit that didn't have any external power to the circuit. When asked it said "ah yes, let me add that" and proceeded to confuse itself and add stuff that are not needed, but are explained and sounds reasonable if you don't know anything. After numerous attempts it didn't produce any working design.
So how can you verify that the therapist agent you've built will work with something as complex as humans, when it can't even do basic circuitry with known laws of physics and spec & data sheets of no more than 10 components?
In the USA. In Europe and such, I'm not saying it's zero chance, but it's extremely unlikely. As Europeans don't rely on insurance for healthcare, but we use government for that :)
( the exception being, if you want private insurance if your government provided one isn't enough)
I follow the channel, can you give me few examples of these errors, as I have not noticed any (I'm not a subject matter expert, or maybe not paying attention enough)
The video being discussed in this thread started off with a rather contentious claim about the Earth being a giant fission reactor that was heavily debated in the comments. I’m not knowledgeable about the subject at all, but it certainly made me double take (and even open the comments!) and seems to be overstated at best.
The Earth definitely does not produce much heat in its core. Most heat produced in the Earth by fission is produced in the crust. Whether that amounts to "being a giant fission reactor" is a question of semantics; it's like an RTG, but doesn't sustain chain reactions.
that channel is fine. Obviously, there are errors, especially if you happen to know a certain topic very well. Otherwise, the videos are info are fine for surface-level information.
I checked my bookmarks file to see if I had summarized any of their videos there, but if I did, I didn't tag them with the channel name, as I usually do for especially terrible videos. So, unfortunately, to give you examples, I would have to watch another Real Engineering video, which I'm unwilling to do unless someone pays me.
in europe 2fa is mandatory for all (or almost all) online purchases, especially first time purchase from a merchant when your card hasn't been authorized. Sites using stripes' link get away with no 2fa most of the time, but not all the time.
Make it mandatory on visa/mastercards level, and you won't loose much sales, as all transactions would require it and people will have to 2fa everywhere.
Yeah, and this is actually a huge pain for visitors. I was in Europe a couple months ago and couldn't buy stuff like train tickets online. Why? Because everything wants to verify with a text, and I couldn't do that because I had gotten a European SIM card because my US plan doesn't do international roaming.
There are several colliding problems there (cheap cell phone plan, 2fa being via text, online purchases requiring 2fa) but it still illustrates to me the pain of doing simple stuff in the modern tech space. I wish the powers that be would work harder on solutions that don't require extra work from the people doing small, normal stuff. It would be better to have a lot more fraud occur but a lot more of the perpetrators pursued and caught. A lot of anti-fraud measures seem to be largely about passing the buck to someone else instead of actually eliminating the humans who are driving the fraud.
Based on your explanation and my very very limited knowledge of Microsoft SharePoint, sounds you were trying to implement SharePoint!
And there's a lot of enterprises that use that and pay a lot of money for it!
The business side problem i can see is : how do you convince MS focused companies to use your product instead of SharePoint?
Could your product be built on top of it?
Can you for example also enhance gSuite?
Thank you for open sourcing this, so others may learn from you or build upon your work!
I'm also going to stick to the meds, as they work very well for me, with that said tDCS seems to have some merit, according to research [0].
But there doesn't seem to be a lot of data with larger sample sizes yet. So this product doesn't completely strike me as snake oil, but i have my reservations until more data is available or at least FDA approved
There are many genetic and environmental causes to ADHD though, so I am in no way saying that a B6 issue is a cure all. But if you have high Homocysteine it could be a sign you need B6.
In my case it's genetic. My mom & sister also have it. My grandmother has Parkinson's, so I'm extremely likely to also get it at some point. I've tried all recommended vitamins, supplements, etc. nothing really helped as much as Concerta.
You should get a full genome run on yourself and whoever else is affected and start investigating if you have polymorphisms in some of the genes responsible fro making dopamine or issues with antioxidant enzymes like GPX:
It's fun to find grey/read links at random in these threads. B6 worked for me and adding B2 was also beneficial. But make sure to read about B6 toxicity as well. And you're going to freak out your doctor if you tell them.
By taking B6 in the form of P5P you reduce the need to push the Pyridoxal Kinase enzyme (which uses zinc) and you will more than likely not have any neurological side effects. And you will also save your ATP for better things.
