Hexarei

Ah, I've generally run my VPN primary exit node in a public cloud infrastructure host like Digital Ocean or AWS in order to provide a separate public IP from the rest of my stuff, and not give out my home IP to public Wi-Fi and such.

I like docker, as long as you use a good orchestration tool it's a good way to declaratively define what should be running on your server, using a compose file or similar. There are a lot of benefits to the overhead of learning it, including running multiple instances of the same service on one machine without conflicts, and the ability to force your hosted apps to store all of their data in nice neat packages you can easily back up with something like Duplicity or Volumerize.

I actually run my containers on a small kubernetes cluster using VMs running k3s atop Proxmox, with persistence handled by a hyperconverged ceph cluster. All probably very overkill but it's fun to play with and performs incredibly. Most folks can get away with a single server running containers with simple docker compose.

You're welcome, feel free to ask any questions once you get there

If you know your way around a Linux terminal, or can follow simple terminal instructions, I always recommend folks host their own OpenVPN server. $5/month for a digital ocean instance and now I never have to worry about some provider hiking my VPN prices or snooping on my traffic.

Autism+ADHD life, I can't stand to have emails in my inbox for more than a day and I also can't be diligent enough to achieve that

You can dislike the statement all you want, but they literally do not have a way to know things. They provide a convincing illusion of knowledge through statistical likelihood of the next token occurring, but they have no internal mechanism for looking up information.

They have no fact repositories to rely on.

They do not possess the ability to know what is and is not correct.

They cannot check documentation or verify that a function or library or API endpoint exists, even though they will confidently create calls to them.

They are statistical models, calculating how likely the next token is based on transformations in a many-dimensional space in which the relationships between existing tokens are treated as vectors in a process for determining the next token.

They have their uses, but relying on them for factual information (which includes knowledge of apis and libraries) is a bad idea. They are just as likely to provide realistic answers as they are to make up fake answers and present them as real.

They are good for inspiration or a jumping off point, but should always be fact checked and validated.

They're fantastic at transforming data from one format to another, or extracting data from natural language written information. I'm even using one in a project to guess at filling in a form based on an incoming customer email.

Indeed. I stopped using it altogether a couple months ago.

Not the person you're replying to, but my main hangup is that LLMs are just statistical models, they don't know anything. As such, they very often hallucinate language features and libraries that don't exist. They suggest functions that aren't real and they are effectively always going to produce average code - And average code is horrible code.

They can be useful for exploration and learning, sure. But lots of people are literally just copy-pasting code from LLMs - They just do it via an "accept copilot suggestion" button instead of actual copy paste.

I used Copilot for months and I eventually stopped because I found that the vast majority of the time its suggestions are garbage, and I was constantly pausing while I typed to await the suggestions, which broke flow state and tired me out more then it ever helped.

I'm still finding bugs it introduced months later. It's great for unit tests, but that's basically it in my case. I don't let the AI write production code anymore

I can imagine that getting confused with Guix (pronounced geeks)

The analogy, like most, breaks down the moment we come back to the reality of the situation at hand:

1- The lines are incredibly close together. Nobody lives across the world, incredibly removed from gender. The English language itself uses gender heavily. 2- The person from Zimbabwe, in the metaphor, is going to Californian spaces and complaining that he doesn't want to be called "non-Californian" because states aren't real.

The context matters, and the contexts in which people use the term cisgender are almost always in direct contrast with one or more alternatives.

That said, I don't condone harassing people, so I'm definitely against sending him messages unprompted calling him that... But he's just in general against the concept of cisgender existing because it is predicated on the existence of alternatives, and he doesn't believe alternatives exist.

lol

I see what you're trying to say, but this is a fundamentally different situation like you said: This particular word is specifically used in situations where its use is important for distinguishing groups. There are no alternatives when distinguishing is necessary because the options aren't just "transgender" and "not transgender", there are also agender and nonbinary.

The alternative is to say the full qualifier of "People who are the gender they were assigned at birth" or "People who are neither trans nor agender nor non binary..." - At which point you're just defining the word cisgender.

With JP it's honestly more akin to saying "Ok so there are people who live in California, people with homes in multiple states, and people who don't live in California. Californians, kinda-californians, and non-Californians."

And then someone who does not live in California pipes up with "don't call me a non-Californian because California isn't real".

In this particular case, it's because JP is very much vocal about both of those things. He is a cisgender male who is only objecting to the suggestion of the existence of an alternative to being the gender you were assigned at birth.