hedgehog

Unless something has changed, it did. The page linked reads:

And, obviously, this POC is open source, the code is publish here on our forge.

The link takes you to their repos. The server repo has instructions on self-hosting directly on your server or with Docker. The app repo has code for both the iOS and Android apps. That’s good, because the iOS app at least doesn’t have a built-in way to select a different backend server.

Whisper is by OpenAI and as far as I know they have not shared the training code, much less the data sets, so the best you can do is fine-tune the models they’ve provided.

If use of Whisper is a problem, but the project is otherwise interesting to you, you could ask them to consider using a different STT solution (or allowing the user to choose between different options). I’m not aware of any fully open STT applications that are considered to be as capable as Whisper, but if you do, that would be great info to share with them.

What else have you tried?

Just don't use Ubuntu. They do too much invisible fuckery with the system that hinders use on a server.

Would that warning also apply to Mint, since it’s based on Ubuntu, as well as other Ubuntu-based distros?

Depends on your perspective. Would it be fine for Meta Threads to replace it? Threads supports ActivityPub, so in some ways it likely interacts better with the fediverse.

If we agree that Threads isn’t a suitable replacement, then clearly there’s some criteria a replacement should meet. A lot of the things that make Threads unpalatable are also true of Bluesky, particularly if your concern relates to the platform being under the control of a corporation.

On the other hand, from the perspective of “Twitter 2.0 is now a toxic, alt-right cesspool where productive conversations can’t be had,” then both Threads and Bluesky are huge improvements.

In 2020, California had*

The article and the report it referenced were written in March 2022. The report was using data from 2020:

All the data used to conduct this study comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey with one-year experimental estimates.

That isn’t what it means at all.

The way to do this is to use a mailing list that only allows a limited number of people to send emails to it. You could do this automatically when someone clicked a “Prohibit Reply All” button, but such a feature is unnecessary if you use mailing lists configured that way by default.

Your comment makes no sense.

The article you posted is from 2023 and PERA was basically dropped. However, this article talks about PREVAIL, which would prevent patents from being challenged except by the people who were sued by the patent-holder, and it’s still relevant.

• Assembled: 1200 USD
• Kit: 950 USD

The rules text says it creates an area of darkness, and with your interpretation, it doesn’t, which means your interpretation is wrong. Yes, the ability could be written more clearly, but the logic for a reasonable way for it to function follows pretty cleanly. Your interpretation is not RAW or RAI.

There’s a reply on RPG StackExchange that covers a similar line of logic to what I wrote above.

Remember that Fifth Edition D&D is intentionally not written with the same exacting precision as games like M:tG. The game doesn’t have an explicit definition of magical darkness, but it’s pretty clear that the intent is for magical to trump mundane (when it comes to sources of light and darkness). Even the Specific Beats General section says that most of the exceptions to general rules are due to magic.

White straight able bodied men age 25-64

25-36 is still “young” by their definition.

and a union doesn't exist in their industry (as far as they know)

It doesn’t matter what industry you’re working in if you’re interested in that industry having a union. Making unions more commonplace was part of the point. The second sentence in the Union Members and Families section reads “Democrats will make it easier for workers, public and private, to exercise their right to organize and join unions.”

But sure, if you don’t believe unions have value, this wouldn’t include you.

Fuck 'em lol. Wait are they religious, rural, a business owner, or a veteran? No? Ok yeah fuck 'em!

You and I must have different definitions of “fuck ‘em,” because I clearly said:

Economically, Democratic policies favor poor and middle class people, which statistically makes up the majority of all white men. And there aren’t any policies that oppress white people or men the way that Republican policies oppress women or reduce support for all of the groups that Democratic policies help support.

So sure, if you’re a white man with wealth that puts you in the top 1%, the Republican’s economic policies will be better for you. For the other 99% of white men - no. And for the specific issues called out in the original post linked (on Reddit):

1. Men account for 75% of suicides in the US
2. 70% of opioid overdose deaths are men
3. Men are 8 times more likely to be incarcerated than women
4. Young men are struggling in schools and are increasingly the minority at universities, opting out of higher education

• 1 is addressed under “Investing in Mental Health” in the Party Platform as well as indirectly by gun safety policies (since 50% of suicides are by gun, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, and 87% of gun suicides are committed by men)
• 2 is explicitly addressed under “Faith Community (“respond to the opioid crisis”) and under “Beating the Opioid Epidemic” in the Party Platform.
• 3 is addressed under “Criminal Justice” in the Party Platform
• 4 is addressed in multiple ways, under “Good Jobs” (“you shouldn’t have to go to a four-year college to live a good, middle-class life.”) and under “Education” (investing in K-12 education, providing free, universal preschool, investing in other forms of secondary education - e.g., trade schools, community college, registered apprenticeships)

Democrats need to work on their messaging, obviously (and the comments on the Reddit post touch on that), but the problem isn’t that their policies don’t help white men, because they obviously do.