I've been getting into Blender for the last few months. Previously i was used to paying ZBrush, Modo and etc 500+ dollars for Licensing, and it's kinda shocking how much functionality you get in Blender for free.
I just signed up for the lowest tier. Not sure how much i want to spare a month, but i can definitely spare a coffee and month and it is well, well worth it. Much thanks to the entire team on Blender, you folks rock :)
I've been using it to automate behavior of an asset pipeline for a game. Basic stuff, like taking many assets and putting them in the right location, combining several things, rendering, on demand (not at runtime, but based on usage in the game), etc.
Neat thing too is it's in Rust, not Python.. because, well, i prefer and know Rust, and by doing it in Rust it works with the rest of my game code so that on-demand stuff i mention plugs in nicely to my existing ecosystem. Note that i'm using Py03 for Rust, so it's just Rust<->Python. Not native Rust support or anything
> Early in the year I made the switch from Modo (by The Foundary) to Blender 3.x
Hah, that's me. Except i was out of CG for ~7 years or w/e. I used Modo extensively from 1.0 to .. i want to say 5.0 or something. Tons of modeling. I adored Modo for modeling. This was all before they were bought by Foundary or w/e, though. Back when it was Luxology.
Maybe you have an opinion here.. but how is Blender for modeling? Specifically when 3D Navigating. So far i've found Blender to be .. okay, like it has all or almost all the tools i remember from Modo... but something just feels different. Modo felt so fluid, intuitive. Especially with 3D navigation. Something just doesn't feel as good about 3D Nav compared to Modo. But i can't put my finger on it.
Regardless, Blender has so much power i absolutely adore it. I'm just trying to capture that fluidness that i had in Modo. Yet i can't articulate what it is. Which.. sucks, heh.
I'm really just using Blender for modelling and UV unwrapping (and I've used the paint-to-texture feature once) and I think it's pretty solid, but I really haven't gone near sculpting or anything soft-surface/organic. I probably need to model another dozen things to get up to my Modo ability though.
I also used Modo from version 101 to 501. Maybe it’s because of baby duck syndrome, but I have never found anything that even comes close to Modo, in terms of ease of use and workflow.
You can get the Blender viewport behaviors to match Modo, but you'll need to customize all the Input/Navigation/Keymap settings. The modeling tools themselves are mostly kind of there at a foundational level, but it’s all really clunky in comparison. I wish that Blender had the work plane and tool pipe. I just learned the Blender way to do things, instead of trying to fight it.
Yea, this is kinda why i don't understand a lot of these off the shelf CRDT solutions. Like CRDTs for JSON.
I'm still trying to learn CRDTs; but early on in my learning process i had the thought that CRDTs don't have mere data types - as you say, they have Data Type + Conflict Resolution bundled into one. It's not enough to make a String type, because different types need to be resolved differently. Plus some types of resolution have a lot more metadata, so you want to choose the best fitting one.
I found that my goal to make SQL + CRDT meant i had to expose this combo of Type + Resolution to the end user. It seems essential to how the app works.
But maybe i don't know anything, /shrug. I'm still learning them.
Yes! We call this the "Merge Type" of data in the braid.org group.
Each datum as both a data type and a merge type. The programmer just needs to specify these two types, and then the programming runtime can choose which synchronization algorithm to use.
When can we run something like ChatGPT locally i wonder? Ie like StableDiffusion.
I'm kinda dying for that, honestly. I can't even imagine all the neat applications i'd make of ChatGPT if it was purely local.. but it would take all of my free time to play with it. It's so damn impressive.
Probably not realistic for now to run it locally, GPT-3 has like 175 billion parameters, you need to count around at least 2 bytes in optimistic scenario per parameter so you have around 350 GB of GPU memory, you probably need at least around 15 GPUs with minimum 32 GB of memory each.
I think you can run BLOOM locally, but it's not quite as powerful as this iteration of chatGPT. Also the vRAM requirements are pretty high if you want to run the biggest model.
Also one thing i like about these alternate options is they work on my phone. I regularly use Obsidian on my phone to lookup information, jot things down, etc.
With that said i'm still looking (making.. maybe?) my perfect solution which is mostly just Selfhosted + Notes + Spaced Rep in the right UX.
I do not get your question: org-mode offer various ZK-alike implementation like zetteldesk on top of org-roam, in mere storage terms a zettel is a heading, real links between them allow to travel between notes. You can capture them in a timeline...
Smaller communities can be more focused and managed. Trying to get everyone in one place agreeing on one set of rules sounds impossible. At least federation has the potential to let groups exist differently as desired.
That is the thing, people do not go to twitter to be in "Small Focused Community"
They do it to interact with the globe, and the more people on that network the better it is.
There are a million ways to create a niche site (like hacker news) that allows a Small Focused Community to interact, that is not a replacement for Twitter
Agreed, but that's kinda the point in my eyes. Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy?
Everyone was on Facebook too. We're not all looking for Facebook 2.0 currently, are we? Yea, we have different form factors of social networks, definitely. But some (not all!) of the core features of Facebook were misguided or mismanaged. Some features of Facebook aren't looking to be replaced.
I'm not saying Mastodon is a replacement for Twitter. I'm simply saying maybe some features of Twitter aren't worth being replaced for many people.
>>Maybe a global forum with no moderation everyone can agree with is a bad thing? Ie maybe it makes everyone unhappy?
I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy
I think people need thicker skin, and maybe more anonymity not less...
Censorship is not the solution, never has been in history and never will be in the future.
What a ridiculous thing to say. Actually plenty of us (and I've also been on the internet for many decades now) would like to hop online to engage with some cool folks about [insert interesting topic here] without having utter garbage and dreck thrown up in our faces like racism, transphobia, misogyny, bigotry, etc., etc.
Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be
I support giving people the power to create their own echo chambers and safe spaces, feel free to do so..
No one should be forced to communicate with anyone they do not want to, however you also should not be able to prevent me from communicating with others that I desire to
>>What a ridiculous thing to say
Not really, it is sad parents have stopped teaching "Sticks and Stones my break my bones but words will never harm me"
We really have lost the cultural axiom "I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" haven't we.
> Well it is good thing for you all major platforms have the ablity to block, mute, or otherwise curate your experience, including sharing "block lists" and other innovations so your personal experience is what you make it to be
Why would i choose a platform where i have to moderate thousands of individuals? Ie what's the purpose in that lol?
Where is this world where we went from having Forums of communities to global cesspools where we want to manage what sort of nonsense shows up on the feed?
> We really have lost the cultural axiom "I may hate what you say, but I will defend your right to say it" haven't we.
I didn't say this, so your two replies in one feels odd. However, no one is stopping you from saying it. Say it all you want. I'm advocating a smaller forum where i don't have to listen to you say things to me that i'm uninterested in.
I'm not stopping you from being on the internet. From having electricity. Just like i'm fine with you yelling on the street corner.
I'm moving to the other side of the street. And you object to that, for some odd reason. Because by me moving, it doesn't give you a voice?
Edit: To sum it up, this isn't about safe spaces. This is about spam. There's only so much "Vaccines give you 5G!!!" i can put up with lol. Just like the guy on the street corner. Hard to have a conversation around that annoying screaming.
Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." -- Stephen Fry
You can not have free expression if the only thing required to shut down that expression is to claim emotional harm. I did not respect that position when it was the Christian right claim harms if gays spoke nor do I today when the authoritarian left claims emotional harm over the wrong pronouns
> Emotions are real, but is it not the public responsibility to manage your emotions. Each person, solely, is responsible for their own emotions. If "emotional harm" becomes the basis for what speech is allowed and what is not then we cease to have a culture of free expression
Yea, this is bunk. What do you think fuels things like mass hysteria? What do you think fuels illogical decisions made in mass?
I'm not advocating for mass censorship, but lets not pretend humans are either logical or capable of handling their own emotions. They're terrible at it. Look at any collection of humans. You can't walk forward without stubbing your toe over examples. Daily commute traffic is full of humans who can't manage their own emotions. edit: Even police know that human memory can't be trusted. What do you think fuels decisions we make, if our memory is so mutable?
Likewise, if it was just emotions up for discussion that would be one thing. But it's not, it's so much more. It's "facts". A mass information war is taking place. Standing on the sidelines saying again, people can handle it, has already been proven false. Repeatedly. People cannot nor will not handle it, at least without help.
The more quickly we recognize how horrible humans are at handling emotions and information ingestion the better we can make reasonable decisions about how to aid humans in actually making progress.
then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation
Nor do I trust government agencies (like the CDC or the WHO) to be the "source of truth"
> then proceed to advocate for mass censorship, you are functionally saying we need fact checkers the problem is I do not trust the fact checkers that have been appointed in the past because they have been proven to be partisan hacks that spread "approved" disinformation only dispelling unapproved disinformation
I did not, you misunderstand.
I merely advocate for acknowledging that humans are terrible at the things i pointed at. Which conversely, you seem to advocate that we are capable there. You can both identify that we are terrible at information and not advocate for surveillance/censorship. Why do you jump to those contrasts?
To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it. Information is a gun, and we have not taken gun safety. We need tools and acknowledgement of our limitations before we can wield the power you so haphazardly throw around. I do not trust young children with guns. We are nothing more than children in our current state.
My previous post advocated that we don't pretend the children can handle guns safely without training and safety tooling. edit: That we should find ways to prove gun safety training / tooling, rather than remove guns (in this analogy lol)
>>To think of it differently, we have to acknowledge we have a problem before we can fix it.
That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem
You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression
> That is the thing, outside of mass censorship it is unsolvable problem
Completely agree there. edit: Or rather, that it's an unsolved problem. I misread `able` for `ed`
> You either allow people to speak freely, in which case misinformation will spread, and emotions will be harmed. or you restrict speech eliminating the very concept of free expression
> There is no utopia to be found here
Yes, those are the current available options. I'm not questioning that.
I'm challenging your assertion that we're capable. More specifically, saying we must acknowledge that we're not capable. We must acknowledge and identify the problem.
> I do not agree, and it does not make me unhappy at all. I am late 70's child, I experienced the Wild West of the internet, nothing posted to twitter (or the chan's for that matter) shock me, or makes me unhappy
Yea, i did say "everyone" but i didn't actually mean everyone. Lots of people enjoy Facebook in all it's glory, too.
> Censorship is not the solution, never has been in history and never will be in the future.
My comment wasn't about Censorship, though. It was about people and a possibility that they may prefer categorized focused communities like many of us grew up with. Which may or may not include moderation (aka "censorship")
I certainly enjoyed the forums of old more than the modern day global scroll feed. But i prefer focused/categorized content, clearly.
My point wasn't that you do or don't. Merely to pose a question. A question (among many) that could dictate whether or not the Forums of old have a place in the modern day. Whether or not the global attention draw that is Twitter is actually desired. edit: Desired enough to keep it alive and "successful", at least.
Censorship and moderation are very different things. Moderation is more about format than content: too frequent posting, adding hyperlinks to irrelevant sites, intentionally poor formatting (all capslock) and so on. And moderators are usually public figures, because the rules are simple and widely supported. Censorship is "wrongthink moderation": censors dont care about format of the message, but care about the thought behind it. Censors are usually anon figures and the rules are usually unpopular and secret for this reason.
Yea.. how does he expect this to be interpreted? Their stance hasn't changed.. cool, except before Twitter said some people posted hateful content, and banned them. Now they unbanned them, so what is the non-change?
Does twitter agree that the comments were hateful, did that not change? If didn't change, then twitter agrees they were hateful comments and twitter is now happy to have them on the platform.
Musk can't keep his foot out of his mouth here it seems.. it's very confusing.
Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever?
I personally, don't believe in eternal bans. I always hate the horror stories where someone has made a mistake and thus Google bans them from all non-related activities for life, then bans the account of anyone who gave that person privileges too.
With respect to Twitter, I'd say sure Trump is an insurrectionist and a shameful individual, but it's been 2 years... while we can't all rightly forgive him, we can at least him speak his thoughts in 280 characters or less.
> Maybe their stance is that people shouldn't be banned forever?
They are entitled to that stance, and advertisers uncomfortable with either the actual or anticipated results of that stance are entitled to not advertise on Twitter.
I'm starting to question how much he has ever. Has something changed with him? Or has he always been like this? If it's always been this rash, hasty and questionable then i can only imagine the real heroes are the people around him who managed to refine what he says and wants into tangible, achievable and coherent goals.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with his actions these days, it does at least seem a significant departure from how the public perceived his actions in the past. Over the past few years his actions have steadily grown more.. loud, at the very least.
> I'm starting to question how much he has ever. Has something changed with him? Or has he always been like this?
His growing group of admirers started treating his like a messiah, and he fully embraced that role, along with the behaviors that it engenders upon someone. He's not special in that way. It's a position a lot of ambitious people would like to be in.
He completely underestimated the difference between a corporate takeover of an established company and growing a startup. In addition, he appears to be getting terrible advice, which is not uncommon for powerful people who attract sycophants.
I think what's changed is that Twitter is 1) an established thing, rather than something Musk built up and 2) not really tech.
Tesla, SpaceX, Boring Co have ambitious objectives with clear right/wrong answers. You put something in orbit or don't. Your car goes 500km with 70kWh of energy or it doesn't etc. You can inspire smart engineers to work hard to meet ambitious goals that require creative thinking.
Twitter has none of that, it is more like a club. Having the loudest speakers or brightest lights isn't going to make your club the best club. There is a certain baseline of technical competence required, yes, but mostly its about attracting the right crowd (being extra nice to some people, kicking others out) and making sure everybody has a good time. Musk might have actually succeeded with this using his previous person, but his new culture warrior schtick isn't gonna work.
he had very capable partners/lieutenants at spacex and tesla (shotwell and straubel, respectively). elon's undeniably great at cheerleading and fundraising but it's unclear how much credit he deserves for the technical accomplishments of spacex and tesla. at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo and at twitter he's surrounded himself with non entities like jason calcanis and alex spiro
> at paypal he was run out almost immediately upon becoming ceo
Technically, he was never CEO “at Paypal”. He was forced out as CEO of X.com the second time just before it took the name of the main product (which it had acquired with the company that developed it, with Elon returning as CEO with the acquisition) and became PayPal.
I've been getting into Blender for the last few months. Previously i was used to paying ZBrush, Modo and etc 500+ dollars for Licensing, and it's kinda shocking how much functionality you get in Blender for free.
I just signed up for the lowest tier. Not sure how much i want to spare a month, but i can definitely spare a coffee and month and it is well, well worth it. Much thanks to the entire team on Blender, you folks rock :)