• 3 Posts
  • 104 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • IKEA pairing somehow different than Zigbee binding?

    Ikea pairing is Zigbee standard group binding via touchlink initiation. What is different is Home assistant, which doesnt really handle Zigbee groups.

    But I’m also curious about the option in Home Assistant to bind devices.

    If you mean zigbee group binding, in my experience Home Assistant doesnt handle Zigbee groups well. There is technical capacity and group manager, but to me it seems it doesnt correctly bind all of the action clusters and so on. Plus most finally the UI is very confusing etc. (That or I’m dumb and can’t get it working right)

    Home assistant handles grouped devices primarily inside its own logic and talks to them as individual devices. Which leads for example to stuff like non synchronous action. I don’t think Zigbee groups either guarantee synchronicity, but it is pretty instant since it is single mesh wide broadcast of “whole group this, do this”. Where as Home assistant send say ten different messages to ten different Zigbee devices. Thus there is delay and difference, when each device receives their individual command.

    Most dedicated Zigbee hubs like trådfri and hue use actual Zigbee groups. When moving devices between “rooms” or whatever each call it, it sends actual configuration message of “change your internal registered group identity” to the lamps, remote controls and so on.



  • Atleast for android and Bluetooth. Not an absolute matter protocol thing, but probably “normal android allows that only woth google signed app”. Some OS access thing and so on. “You don’t get to access that Bluetooth matter discovery call mode etc. without official sign off, security hurdur”.

    Since matter has ways to connected fully without Bluetooth depending on device. Bluetooth is just the easy simple way, instead of having to hunt for pairing QR symbols or number codes. Go to the other device makers app to activate pairing mode or generate one off pairing codes and so on.





  • Yet again with the media, the astronauts aren’t stuck on ISS. It is blatantly false to headline such. Haven’t been since ehhh was it November. They have a perfectly working lifeboat capsule with seats. They could return any moment now should it be deemed necessary.

    Their mission profile got changed. They are now part of the next expedition crew and as such their normal schedule return depends on, when replacement expedition arrives to maintain continuity of expeditions. Couple other astronauts expeditions slots got bumped to make this happen.

    These are professional astronauts. Being part of expedition crews is pinnacle achievement of one’s career. Not to mention with both of them given their age and time already in space, this is their last space mission. I doubt they much mind their last mission is instead of week long test flight of a new capsule, an 8 month long long stay space station expedition. Ending ones in space career in style with a long stay expedition doing experiments and studies on ISS.


  • variaatio@sopuli.xyztoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    They decided it already couple years ago. However refresh cycles are such, that only now it starts to arrive to times where changes physically manifest. Another thing which they already said back then and kinda apologised for alas sorry, changes have to wait until next refresh or next generation of the vehicle depending on timing.

    Like I guess this is official official now, but design team lead or someone like that said ages ago they would be going back to more physical buttons.


  • Because they can’t without backdooring the software? Just like they also refuse to co-operate with Swedish government and threatened to leave the market should Sweden try to force them.

    You know Russian spies can also use TOR onion routing and so on.

    As for phishing there is nothing Signal can do about someone scanning a signal contact sharing QR and adding it to their contracts list beyond informative “hey are you really sure, really really sure you want to add this contact”. If user trusts someone they shouldn’t, no amount of app policy protections help. Or maybe they manage to shish them to scan and approve “share account to another device”. Again nothing Signal can do about that.



  • Well one doesn’t necessary need to get rid of electoral college, if the electors were appointed by proportional vote and representation. At that point it would be just a smudging filter. National popular vote with extra steps and some added in accuracy due to one being able to do so much proportionality given how many electors there is.

    So the main problem is not electoral college, but the voting method. Just as note since also getting rid of electoral college isn’t a fix, if the direct popular election uses bad voting method. Like say nationwide plurality vote would be horrible replacement for electoral college.

    Though I would assume anyone suggesting popular vote would mean nationwide majority win popular vote. Though that will demand a “fail to reach majority” resolver. Be it a two round system (second round with top two candidates, thus guaranteed majority result) or some form of instant run-off with guaranteed majority win after elimination rounds.

    TLDR: main problem I winner take all plurality, first past the post more than the technicality of there existing such bureaucratic element as electors and electoral votes.



  • 30 years away from it (reduced from the original 100 years they provided only 5 years ago)

    More like estimates on this are completely unreliable. As in that 100 years could have as well been 1000 years. It was pretty much “until an unpredictable technological paradigm shift happens”. “100 years in future” is “when we have warp drives and star gates” of estimates. Pretty “when we have advanced to next level of advancement and technology, whenever it happens. 100 years should be good minimum of this not being taken as an actual year number estimate”.

    30 years is “we see maybe a potential path to this via hypothetical developments of technology in horizon”. It’s the classical “Fusion is always 30 years away”. Until one time it isn’t, but that 30 year loop can go on indefinitely, if the hypothetical don’t turn to reality. Since you know we thought “maybe that will work, once we put out mind in to it”. Oh it didn’t, on to chasing next path.

    I only know of one project, that has 100 year estimate, that is real. That is the Onkalo deep repository of spent fuel in Finland. It has estimate of spending 100 years being filled and is to be sealed in 2120’s and that is an actual date. Since all the tech is known, the sealing process is known, it just happens to take a century to fill the repository bit by bit. Finland is kinda stable country and radiation hazard such long term, that whatever government is to be there in 2120’s, they will most likely seal the repository.

    Unless “we invent warp drives” happens before that and some new process of actually efficiently and very safely getting rid of the waste is found in some process. (and no that doesn’t include current recycling methods. Since those aren’t that good to get rid of this large amount and with small enough risk of side harms. Surprise, this was studied by Finland as alternative and it was simply decided “recycling is not good enough, simple enough, efficient enough and safe enough yet. Bury it in bedrock tomb”).


  • Main issue comes from GDPR. When one uses the consent basis for collecting and using information it has to be a free choice. Thus one can’t offer “Pay us and we collect less information about you”. Hence “pay or consent” is blatantly illegal. Showing ads in generic? You don’t need consent. That consent is “I vote with my browser address bar”. Thing just is nobody anymore wants to use non tracked ads…

    So in this case DMA 5(2) is just basically re-enforcement and emphasis of previous GDPR principle. from verge

    “exercise their right to freely consent to the combination of their personal data.”

    from the regulation

    1. The gatekeeper shall not do any of the following:
      (a) process, for the purpose of providing online advertising services, personal data of end users using services of third parties that make use of core platform services of the gatekeeper;
      (b) combine personal data from the relevant core platform service with personal data from any further core platform services or from any other services provided by the gatekeeper or with personal data from third-party services;
      © cross-use personal data from the relevant core platform service in other services provided separately by the gatekeeper, including other core platform services, and vice versa; and
      (d) sign in end users to other services of the gatekeeper in order to combine personal data,

    unless the end user has been presented with the specific choice and has given consent within the meaning of Article 4, point (11), and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

    surprise 2016/679 is… GDPR. So yeah it’s new violation, but pretty much it is “Gatekeepers are under extra additional scrutiny for GDPR stuff. You violate, we can charge you for both GDPR and DMA violation, plus with some extra rules and explicity for DMA”.

    I think technically already GDPR bans combining without permission, since GDPR demands permission for every use case for consent based processing. There must be consent for processing… combining is processing, needs consent. However this is interpretation of the general principle of GDPR. It’s just that DMA makes it explicit “oh these specific processing, yeah these are processing that need consent per GDPR”. Plus it also rules them out of trying to argue “justified interest” legal basis of processing case of the business. Explicitly ruling “these type of processing don’t fall under justified interest for these companies, these are only and explicitly per consent type actions”.


  • That is just its core function doing its thing transforming inputs to outputs based on learned pattern matching.

    It may not have been trained on translation explicitly, but it very much has been trained on these are matching stuff via its training material. Since you know what its training set most likely contained… dictionaries. Which is as good as asking it to learn translation. Another stuff most likely in training data: language course books, with matching translated sentences in them. Again well you didnt explicitly tell it to learn to translate, but in practice the training data selection did it for you.




  • Nah. 2k$ was a cheap PR face save for them. Pay 2k$ or deal for weeks and months with “remember how Tesla was a stingy bad corporate and cancelled a large order to a small business without compensation”.

    Noh they can go “Well yeah the cancellation wasn’t exactly gracefully, but hey we compensated the business for it. Our bad.”

    Mind you even just paying the while 15k$ would have been small change for them. So I guess they are not utterly (business relations wise) horrible company, but still a cheap conglomerate.


  • Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.

    Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.

    On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.

    Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn’t actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn’t know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren’t interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.

    I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can’t be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.

    It’s a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don’t know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn’t write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.

    So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.