I don’t have as much experience with HASS, but I did use Mycroft for quite a while (stopped only because I had multiple big moves, and ended up in a place small enough voice control didn’t really make sense any more). There were a few intent parsers used with/made for that:

https://github.com/MycroftAI/adapt https://github.com/MycroftAI/padatious https://github.com/MycroftAI/padaos

In my experience, Adapt was far and away the most reliable. If you go the route of rolling your own solution, I’d recommend checking that out, and using the absolute minimum number of words to design your intents. E.g. require “off” and an entity, and nothing else, so that “AC off,” “turn off the AC,” and “turn the AC off” all work. This reduces the number of words your STT has to transcribe correctly, and allows flexibility in command phrasing.

If you borrow a little more from Mycroft, they had “fallback” skills that were triggered when an intent couldn’t be matched. You could use the same idea, and use https://github.com/seatgeek/thefuzz to fuzzy match entities and keywords, to try to handle remaining cases where STT fails. I believe that is what this community made skill attempted to do: https://github.com/MycroftAI/skill-homeassistant (I think there were more than one HASS skill implementations, so I could be conflating this with another).

Another comment mentioned OVOS/Neon - those forked off of Mycroft, so you may see overlap if you investigate those as well.

Fediverse… Fed… Federated. Unifying it would defeat the purpose. Yes, there could be a single platform, with federated hosting, but multiple platforms working with a single protocol is a good thing.

Consider the web - in the old days, it was an open platform. Then Internet Explorer got a stranglehold, and to use the web practically required using IE on Windows (many sites did not work in other browsers). Eventually we righted the ship, but now Chromium browsers are taking over, and we’re heading in a similar direction.

For the fediverse to remain open and effective, we should embrace extra platforms*. It prevents anyone getting too much control over the protocol, prevents lock-in, prevents centralization, etc.

*We should generally encourage use/development of the same protocol, though.

I used Windows growing up, switched to Linux in highschool on my personal machines, and was forced to use Mac for nearly 10 years at work. In my experience, they all have problems, and the worst part is always early on. After you’ve used them for a while and have gotten familiar/comfortable, the problems get easier to deal with, and switching back (or on to something new) becomes more daunting/uncomfortable than dealing with what you have. So in that sense, yes, it will get easier.

Also, as hardware ages, you often see better support (though laptops can be tricky, as they are not standardized).

Keep in mind, when you use Windows or Mac, you’re using a machine built for that OS and (presumably) supported by the manufacturer for that OS (especially with custom drivers). If you give Linux the same advantage (buy a machine with Linux pre-installed, or with Linux “officially supported”), you’re much more likely to have a similar, stable experience.

Also, I’ve had better stability with stock Ubuntu than its derivatives (Pop!_OS and Mint). It might be worth trying an upstream distro, to see if you have better stability.

Having daily driven Windows (~6 years growing up), MacOS (8+ years for work), Linux (~18 years on personal and (some) work machines), and ChromeOS (~2 years, on a cheap Chromebook used while I was traveling places I didn’t want to take an expensive machine), if my options were Windows, MacOS, or ChromeOS, I would 100% take ChromeOS. Even on cheap hardware, it was a better user experience than the others… Though I will caveat that with: when I had to do work that required heavy lifting, I remoted into my Linux desktop. But that was a hardware limitation, rather than a software limitation.

For people who know what they’re doing, I recommend traditional Linux. For those who don’t, I recommend ChromeOS. Mac and Windows are both also run by mega corps, they’re all spying on users… at least ChromeOS is performant and stable.

Do you know if this means desktop Linux apps in general will no longer be supported?

They updated the ride after the movies, so… It’s kind of circular at this point.

I’ve had the same problem with HeliBoard learning garbage. I just changed my settings though, and I think it should help:

1. Open HeliBoard settings
2. Open Text correction settings
3. Scroll all the way to the bottom, and turn off “Add words to personal dictionary”

If you scroll all the way to the top again, you can manually manage the personal dictionary, including adding words you do want, and deleting any junk that was added by mistake, before switching that setting off.

You may have missed “also.” The comment does not suggest replacing the current list.

Worth noting, the existing list dies actually appear to cover both known working and known not working apps - apps that do not work have their names given in strikethrough.

If your drive is the bottleneck, this will make things worse. If you want to proceed:

You’re already using ffmpeg to get the sequence of frames, correct? You can add the -ss and -t flags to give a start time and a duration. Generate a list of offsets by dividing the length of video by the number of processes you want, and feed them through gnu parallel to your ffmpeg command.

My first thought was similar - there might be some hardware acceleration happening for the jpgs that isn’t for the other formats, resulting in a CPU bottleneck. A modern harddrive over USB3.0 should be capable of hundreds of megabits to several gigabits per second. It seems unlikely that’s your bottleneck (though you can feel free to share stats and correct the assumption if this is incorrect - if your pngs are in the 40 megabyte range, your 3.5 per second would be pretty taxing).

If you are seeing only 1 CPU core at 100%, perhaps you could split the video clip, and process multiple clips in parallel?

I currently have a System76 laptop, and sincerely regret my purchase. When I purchased it, the Framework was not out yet - I wanted to support a company that supports right-to-repair, and figured since they controlled the hardware, firmware, and software (Pop!_OS), it would be a good, stable experience. It has not been, and support has generally been poor. I know other people have had better experiences than I have, but personally, I won’t be buying from them again.

I haven’t personally used Purism, but former co-workers spoke really poorly of them. They were trying to buy a big batch for work, and said the build quality was awful. Additionally: https://youtu.be/wKegmu0V75s

I noted in another comment that SearXNG can’t do anything about the trackers that your browser can’t do, and solving this at the browser level is a much better solution, because it protects you everywhere, rather than just on the search engine.

Routing over Tor is similar. Yes, you can route the search from your SearXNG instance to Google (or whatever upstream engine) over Tor, and hide your identity from Google. But then you click a link, and your IP connects to the IP of whatever site the results link to, and your ISP sees that. Knowing where you land can tell your ISP a lot about what you searched for. And the site you connected to knows your IP, so they get even more information - they know every action you took on the site, and everything you viewed. If you want to protect all of that, you should just use Tor on your computer, and protect every connection.

This is the same argument for using Signal vs WhatsApp - yes, in WhatsApp the conversation may be E2E encrypted, but the metadata about who you’re chatting with, for how long, etc is all still very valuable to Meta.

To reiterate/clarify what I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not making the case that people shouldn’t use SearXNG at all, only that their privacy claims are overstated, and if your goal is privacy, all the levels of security you would apply to SearXNG should be applied at your device level: Use a browser/extension to block trackers, use Tor to protect all your traffic, etc.

They are explicitly trying to move away from Google, and are looking for a new option because their current solution is forcing them to turn off ad-blocking. Sounds to me like they are looking for a private option. Plus, given the forum in which we are having the discussion (Lemmy), even if OP is not specifically concerned with privacy, it seems likely other users are.

As for cookies, searxng can’t do any more than your browser (possibly with extensions) can do, and relying on your browser here is a much better solution, because it protects you on all sites, rather than just on your chosen search engine.

“Trash mountain” results is a whole separate issue - you can certainly tune the results to your liking. But literally the second sentence of their GitHub headline is touting no tracking or profiling, so it seems worth bringing attention to the limitations, and that’s all I’m trying to do here.

You mean between their instance and the final search engines? Or between them and a public instance of searxng?

In either case, I’m not sure it buys you anything in terms of privacy you wouldn’t get by using the VPN and going directly to the search engines.

It looks like a few people are recommending this, so just a quick note in case people are unaware:

If you want to avoid being tracked, this is not a good solution. Searxng is a meta search engine, meaning it is effectively a proxy: you search on Searxng, it searches multiple sites and sends all the results back to you. If you use a public instance, you may be protected from the actual search engine*, because many people will use the same instance, and your queries will be mixed in with all of them. If you self host, however, all the searches will be your own - there is then no difference between using Searxng and just going to the site yourself.

*The caveat with using the public instances is while you may be protected from the upstream engine, you have to trust the admins - nothing stops them from tracking you themselves (or passing your data on).

Despite the claims in their docs, I would not consider this a privacy tool. If you are just looking for a good search engine, this may work, and it gives you flexibility and power to tune it yourself. But it’s probably not going to do anything good for your privacy, above and beyond what you can get from other meta search engines like Startpage and DuckDuckGo, or other “private” search engines like Brave.

Since most phones (if not all), use an encrypted filesystem. With such, no service can’t start if the device isn’t initially unlocked after reboot, including Find my device.

Android developers can specify that their apps need to run before the pin is entered, via direct boot mode. This is how alarms still work, even if your phone takes an upgrade overnight, and restarts automatically as part of that process.

I can’t say whether Google’s Find My Device currently does this, but there is no technical reason it can’t.

This is approximately what I do as well, and would highly recommend. The one caveat I would add is while you are researching things you might want to do, take note of the subset of things you most want to do, and make sure you know what days/times they are open, if you need to book in advance, etc. I am very against having a hard schedule, but I also don’t want to travel somewhere only to miss the one thing I was really looking forward to because I decided “I’ll do that tomorrow,” only to find out it was closed the next day.

An additional pro-tip: Make your first list of things you might want to do ahead of time, and name it after the place you are going, e.g. “New York.” Then while you’re traveling, make a second list of “favorites”, e.g. “New York Favorites.” Keep track of all the restaurants, activities, view points, etc that you enjoyed using that second list. Then whenever someone asks for recommendations for a particular location, you can just send them your favorites list.

it has its flaws.

Yep yep. I was aware of some of what you pointed out - I think this might be a “perfect is the enemy of good” scenario, though. GitHub alone accounts for over 84% (based on the awesome-selfhosted-data repo):

$ grep -r 'source_code_url' | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | cut -d '/' -f 3 | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -n 15
   1068 github.com
     36 gitlab.com
      7 git.mills.io
      6 sourceforge.net
      6 framagit.org
      4 www.atlassian.com
      4 codeberg.org
      3 git.drupalcode.org
      3 git.cloudron.io
      2 repos.goffi.org
      2 git.tt-rss.org
      2 git.sr.ht
      2 cvsweb.openbsd.org
      1 yetishare.com
      1 www.wiz.cn

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep github.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))"
0.8422712933753943

Adding in gitlab gets you to 87%:

$ python -c "print($(grep -r 'source_code_url' . | grep -i -e github.com -e gitlab.com | wc -l) / $(ls -1 | wc -l))" 0.8706624605678234

Also popularity != quality.

True, but a thriving community generally means more resources, guides, etc, which can be important, especially for self-hosted solutions.

In any case, the project is great, and much appreciated. Additionally, the enriched html version looks fantastic, and exposes most of the metadata* I’d want to see, regardless of how it’s sorted.

*One other item to track, that I thought about after making my previous comment - number of contributors. It gives an additional data point on the size of the community, as well as an idea of how many people can be hit by busses before the continued development of the project gets called into question.

I would imagine the source for most projects is hosted on GitHub, or similar platforms? Perhaps you could consider forks, stars, and followers as “votes” and sort each sub category based on the votes. I would imagine that would be scriptable - the script could be included in the awesome list repo, and run periodically. It would be kind of interesting to tag “releases” and see how the sort order changes over time. If you wanted to get fancy, the sorting could probably happen as part of a CI task.

If workable, the obvious benefit is you don’t have to exclude anything for subjective reasons, but it’s easier for readers of the list to quickly find the “most used” options.

Just an idea off the top of my head. You may have already thought about it, and/or it may be full of holes.

We can measure it in the release of hormones and watch our minds react to it in MRI. We can see it in our behavior and in the behavior of those who love us. A dozen different people can look at a couple in love and agree, “yup. That’s love.”

These are all true with respect to deities as well. We can watch brains light up on an MRI when someone prays/meditates/reads scripture; religions (purposefully) influence the way people live their lives; multiple people can credit a deity for something they see or experience.

“I know it when I see it” isn’t a good evidential standard, but it’s the best one we have for abstract concepts.

I think it’s a mistake to allow people claiming the existence of a deity to call it an “abstract concept.” At best, they could claim the way you “feel” (experience) a deity is abstract (as are all feelings, hence the question about love), but the deity itself is not. Religions, in general, insist on a specific deity with a specific feature set be worshipped in a specific way, to attain specific benefits and avoid specific punishment. Calling that abstract is a cover, a tactic, a bad faith argument designed to trip people up. It’s akin to a strawman, in that it gets people attacking the wrong thing - defining or failing to define love doesn’t get anyone any closer to proving or disproving the existence of a deity.