I’m not sure.

AFAIK dd will create an IDENTICAL environment. This is actually not desirable as it will cause UUID conflicts where multiple partitions in a system have the same UUID.

Unless you’re restoring something you imaged, dding one disk onto another requires fiddling with the UUIDs and fstab, to make the partitions unique again, so the kernel can tell them apart.

Yes.

But moving a partition can’t be done online. And often enough it’s mecessary before growing one, that I generally just tell people to do partition changes offline.

Not if you need to move it first.

Yes. You can just straight up delete the windows partition. Windows just won’t boot anymore, even though doing only this won’t remove it from the boot menu.

You can do this from your running linux install, but if you want to grow the linux partition to take up the free space, you’ll need to do that from a live usb.

No changes should be necessary. Just delete the windows partition, and grow the linux partition.

Make sure you keep the efi partition, and swap partition, if there is one.

To be clear, they created new packages with these names. Anyone can make anything available on the AUR, but you cannot issue updates under someone elses existing package name.

To be clear, when projects distribute their software via the aur, someone else can’t just issue an update using their package name.

This person appended “fix” and “patched” to appear in searches next to legitimate packages, and seem worth installing instead.

Absolutely.

The Arch User Repository is a way for anyone to easily distribite software.

Hence it has never been secure, and rather than claim it is, you mostly see people and documentation warn you about this, and to be careful if using it.

Any schmuck can make whatever they want available via the AUR. That’s how even the tiniest niche project can often be installed via the AUR. But you trade in some security for that convenience.

TBF, they can be fooled too.

Bitwarden warns against using autofill on load for that very reason, as then simply loading a malicious page might cause it to provide passwords to such a site.

And then, a human when a site doesn’t autofill, is more likely to just go “huh, weird” and do it manually.

Obviously. It too does wine environment management. But it’s meant for games, and for wine specifically, Bottles is just nicer.

Lutris is massive overkill if you just want run the windows version of python in order to compile python code to windows binaries. Not to mention it just isn’t as slick in terms of UX as a wine manager.

It’s not a catch-all game launcher.

It’s a wine environment manager. And it is becoming increasingly good at simplying the complexity of setting up wine bottles for different things.

It’s basically winetricks on steroids, with a really nice GUI to boot.

Running windows games is just one use-case.

I dunno man.

It’s not like linux applications ever have different app-names in the menu, when compared to the package name you just saw when installing it.

That has never tripped me up. No. Never.

/S

It’s probably time based.

And this kind of thing isn’t for the type of people who mess with settings. If this defaulted to off, then it would actually be useless.

Yeah. Plus they immediately got a reply from someone showing where you can turn it off in settings.

Superpowered lying is already a thing, and all we needed was demographic data and context control.

Today, it is possible to get a population to believe almost anything. Show them the right argument, at the right time, in the right context, and they believe it. Facebook and google have scaled up exactly that into their main sources of revenue.

Same goes for attention hacking. AI generated content designed to hook viewers functions in entirely predictable, and fairly well understood ways. And the same goes for the algorithms which “recommend” additional content based on what someone is watching.

As for why doctors can’t do things AIs are pulling off, I’d suggest that’s because current systems are using indicators we don’t know about, which they aren’t sentient enough to explain. If they could, I have no doubt a human doctor, given enough time, could learn about, and detect, such indicators.

There is no evidence that what these models are doing, is “beyond our scale of thinking”.

But again, I do think the machine will be faster.

Current models display “emergent capabilities”, as in abilities we don’t know about before the model is created and tested. But once it is created, we can and have figured out what it is doing and how.

Fair.

I’ve removed it, and I’m sorry.

Logic is logic. There is no “advanced” logic that somehow allows you to decipher aspects of reality you otherwise could not. Humanity has yet to encounter anything that cannot be consistently explained in more and more detail, as we investigate it further.

We can and do answer complex questions. That human society is too disorganized to disseminate the answers we do have, and act on them at scale, isn’t going to be changed by explaining the same thing slightly better.

Imagine trying to argue against a perfect proof. Take something as basic as 1 + 1 = 2. Now imagine an argument for something much more complex - like a definitive answer to climate change, or consciousness, or free will - delivered with the same kind of clarity and irrefutability.

Absolutely nothing about humans makes me think we are incapable of finding such answers on our own. And if we are genuinely incapable of developing a definitive answer on something, I’m more inclined to believe there isn’t one, than assume that we are simply too “small-minded” to find an answer that is obvious to the hypothetical superintelligence.

But precision of thought orders of magnitude beyond our own.

This is just the “god doesn’t need to make sense to us, his thoughts are beyond our comprehension” -argument, again.

Just like a five-year-old thinks they understand what it means to be an adult - until they grow up and realize they had no idea.

They don’t know, because we don’t tell them. Children in adverse conditions are perfectly capable of understanding the realities of survival.

You are using the fact that there are things we don’t understand, yet, as if it were proof that there are things we can’t understand, ever. Or eventually figure out on our own.

That non-sentients cannot comprehend sentience (ants and humans) has absolutely no relevance on whether sentients are able to comprehend other sentients (humans and machine intelligences).

I think machine thinking, in contrast to the human mind, will just be a faster processor of logic.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the weakest modern CPU from running the exact same code as the fastest modern CPU. The only difference will be the rate at which the work is completed.

We’re incapable of even imagining how convincing of an argument a system like this could make.

Vaguely gestures at all of sci-fi, depicting the full spectrum of artificial sentience, from funny comedic-relief idiot, to literal god.

What exactly do you mean by that?

This is the same logic people apply to God being incomprehensible.

Are you suggesting that if such a thing can be built, its word should be gospel, even if it is impossible for us to understand the logic behind it?

I don’t subscribe to this. Logic is logic. You don’t need a new paradigm of mind to explore all conclusions that exist. If something cannot be explained and comprehended, transmitted from one sentient mind to another, then it didn’t make sense in the first place.

And you might bring up some of the stuff AI has done in material science as an example of it doing things human thinking cannot. But that’s not some new kind of thinking. Once the molecular or material structure was found, humans have been perfectly capable of comprehending it.

All it’s doing, is exploring the conclusions that exist, faster. And when it comes to societal challenges, I don’t think it’s going to find some win-win solution we just haven’t thought of. That’s a level of optimism I would consider insane.

Even if it is, I don’t see what it’s going to conclude that we haven’t already.

If we do build “the AI that will save us” it’s just going to tell us “in order to ensure your existence as a species, take care of the planet and each other” and I really, really, can’t picture a scenario where we actually listen.

Like for real.

Were the people who actually do nothing really the ones to get axe for once?