ejs

I suggest looking at llm arena leaderboards filtered by open weight models. It offers benchmarks at a very complete and statistically detailed level for models, and usually is quite up to date when new models come out. The new Gemma that just came out might be the best for 1x GPU, and if you have a bunch of vram check out the larger Chinese models

why have it at all?

Despite all of us collectively agreeing that the law is dumb/flawed, the 40 M residents of Cali should have the liberty to be able to use distros that depend on systemd, legally. And, the developers of these distros using systmed (whether you interpret the law to see them as OS providers or not) want to be able to provide these distros legally.

Now that this functionality exists, apps are going to start using it and requiring it

Yes, but not all apps. While the CA law mandates that app developers must use some API to get the age bracket, the merged code into systemd is not causually related to all apps actually implementing and using the API. Just because systemd merged this code does not inherently result in every single user application querying this, nor does it force you to install apps that do query the API. One may freely choose to not use apps that require it. If one needs an app that requires it, one may set a garbage DOB to their user. I don’t see this as an issue. Do you?

It seems you disagree with the law (so do I) but are blaming the wrong person here (author of merged systemd code). I maintain that complying with the law is harmless, and thus it is beneficial to add this DOB field to the userdb json, because in all cases of some distro user using their computer, they are not compelled to compromise their personal privacy.

Your example relies on some assumptions:

• User has chosen to opt into filling in their actual DOB (not some nonsense date)
• User has app installed that fetches the DOB from userdb

None of these assumptions are garunteed by the merged code into systemd. The following are optional, and not required as a result of the code merged into systemd:

• Merely setting data into the DOB field
• Attesting DOB honestly
• installing some prying application that queries

It’s possible to put your full first and last name into your user, so by your logic the first and last name fields of the user profile should not exist.

Did that help identify the absurdity of your argument?

I’m still not convinced there is a direct casual link between the merged attestation and some future surveillance. Your speculation that this is some deliberate political strategy for some gradual escalation from attestation to surveillance is not logical evidence, but some belief you have, which holds no weight in an argument; it stands that you have no concrete evidence against your logic being a slippery slope fallacy.

You did concede to my argument by admitting “by itself the attestation is pointless.” Good to know we agree that there is outrage over nothing.

By saying “PR vs merge is a moot point”, you’re running away from a logical/technical debate by being dismissive; you are openly stating you don’t care how the mechanics of these foss projects actually work. Again, you can have a speculative opinion, but that is not a logical argument.

When you argue parents should be using OS parental controls, you do know that that’s exactly what the systemd age attestation PR is building, right? It seems you’re fighting against the very infrastructure needed for your preferred solution.

Finally, you conflate local infrastructure with cloud APIs (vindicating my claim that people opposing this are ignorant to the actual code being merged): Systemd is a local init system. Connecting the local userdb age integer to an external, network reliant govt API is a monumental leap in implementation and architecture, not a simple “add this API” patch that can be quietly slipped in without the entire foss community noticing and revolting. The attestation PR, for instance, had around 200 comments, of back and fourth refining of implementation and discussion, before merge.

Benefits:

• avoids a fragmented, disorganized, DE level implementation of storing user age
• allows distros to choose to comply with law

I maintain that optional self reporting of age is not a privacy violation. Would you clarify: what specific privacy concerns does the merged systemd PR create? Be specific about the material consequences it has on the privacy of users.

To be clear, I would also be outraged if some personal privacy nightmare got merged into foss projects I used.

However, adding an optional field to userdb for self reporting of age is definitely not a privacy concern. I honestly have not heard a valid argument against this addition of an optional field. Most are just appeals to emotion/outrage not grounded in the reality of what code was actually committed/merged.

Honest question: are you sure this thinking is not a slippery slope fallacy?

You seem to imply that adding self age attestation inherently necessitates ID verification.

I do not agree with this line of thinking. Instead, I reason that this PR was merged because it is not harmful, and a potential future PR implementing ID verification would not be merged. These are two separate things (PRs/merges), which are not in any way tied to each other causually.

i think subset of people online who are vocally upset about his code contributions (and harassing him, committing fraud, and so on) are ignorant to the actual charges in the PRs and only read the headline and assume he’s shoving ID verification down our throats. I primarily blame media outlets and social media accounts trying to capitalize on this outrage over nothing.

He was a cyber pimp, exploiting sex workers online by stealing from their earnings. He also is one of the largest donors to the pro israeli lobby in the US

from a design perspective, consistency is key. light mode is on? then light mode means light mode, and apps should be in light mode.

do you want both your terminal to be dark theme and your gtk apps (including all of the gnome UI) to be light theme at the same time?

do you want settings within every single app in order to change from light mode to dark mode, as opposed to a global toggle that applies to every UI on your computer?

alternatively, is the terminal the only exception to this global toggle, and this design inconsistency by having the default contradict the default of the rest of your desktop environment is your preference?

i think you need to look into routing. Specifically, split tunneling.

https://tailscale.com/learn/what-is-split-tunneling-secure-critical-data-vpn

https://protonvpn.com/support/protonvpn-split-tunneling

https://mullvad.net/en/help/split-tunneling-with-the-mullvad-app

I’d recommend installing those python dependencies using apt, so that when you update your system packages, the python libraries get updated, too. Pip, on the other hand, is useful for development but is detatched from apt and you will definitely forget to pip update unlike apt update which you hopefully do frequently. Use the names of the packages the readme provides in the pip install … instruction. For example, for numpy, you can install this.

Then, since that python script has a shebang at the top, you can add it to a directory in your $PATH and mark it executable with chmod, and you can invoke the script in your shell from any directory with just the file name.