Your Linux VM instance is Linux, and I don't think it's an unreasonable request to run a VM on your desktop machine, using the virtualization software provided by the OS.

> I prefer to use virtual machines. They’re slower to set up, and start up a little slower too, but they’re convenient for me, and I understand them well. They also behave more like a real Linux system running on bare metal hardware than containers do. There are fewer limitations that get in my way.

> This blog post is not a request for you try to explain Docker, Podman, or containers to me, or for you to tell me how I can learn more about them. I am not interested.

Then I will simply tell you don't understand virtual machines well either, like you said you did. I was going to explain Podman to you, but I won't. I might not understand virtual machines well either FWIW, but I haven't claimed that I do.

For anyone else reading this, Podman has a nice, clean design, that unlike Docker is free from a required daemon or something like Docker Hub. However it can be tricky to use, because it gives you a choice between rootless and rootful as well as non-remote or remote. However, once you get going, it is quite likable, and it's quite impressive how powerful rootless containers are. I recommend trying them on Fedora or Rocky Linux with SELinux, and reading some articles. Here are a few:

- Podman rootless tutorial https://github.com/containers/podman/blob/main/docs/tutorial...

- With a socket activated container, you can have a container listen on a socket while having a --network of none https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/socket-activation-podman

- Using Buildah to build images in a rootless OpenShift container https://github.com/containers/buildah/blob/main/docs/tutoria...

It also helps refute the point because you could certainly ask an LLM to speak as though they’re a character from the book.

And if what it does now is unimpressive, it might be a good thing to use to monitor the rapid progress of LLMs.

There is sure to be lots of training data from people with French as a first language and English as a second language that can be pulled up with some prompting.

Whatever floats Gwern’s boat I guess.

I don’t think they’re doing it out of a personal preference but because with what they’ve learned about LLMs it makes sense. I think in particular it seems to be less about rules than linguists thought.

Ah, yes, regulations. Those don't seem to have been written with me in mind, since I still get spam.

I like how one of those was called the CAN-SPAM act. Others have been similar.

Interesting but in the EU spam calls/sms seem to have gone down over 99.99% after GDPR. Some huge fines at the beginning helped

The first step is missing though. We need a caller ID for every call and text that shows who is actually calling / paying for the call. One option I think is to allow people to opt into a new phone call protocol that automatically rejects all calls and texts that are not in this new protocol where caller ID / texter ID contains the entire information.

Slowly, as more people opt into it, we can make it opt out, and then get rid of the old protocol completely. If some countries don't want to adopt the new protocol, well tough luck at that point but I think it is fundamental for us to be able to trust caller ID before we can do anything else.

That shouldn't be put forth as a goal. It's how Germany got rid of all its nuclear plants and has to keep burning coal and buying fuel from Russia.

It's also how Scotland ended up harnessing their wind power, much to the consternation of one American capitalist...

Make it faster and furiouser.

There are so many variables involved that it’s hard to predict what it will mean for the open web to have a faster alternative to headless Chrome. At least it isn’t controlled by Google directly or indirectly (Mozilla’s funding source) or Apple.

Digital Restrictions Management, then. Have it your way.

There are so many combative people on HackerNews lately who insist to misinterpret everything.

I really wonder if it's bots or just assholes.

Indeed DRM is a very different thing from adhering to standards like `robots.txt` as a default out of the box (there could still be a documented option to ignore it).

- That's just like, your opinion, man

He was using DRM as a metaphor for restricted software. And advocating that software should do whatever the user wants. If the user is ignorant about the harm the software does, then adding robots.txt support is win-win for all. But if the user doesn't want it, then it's political, in the same way that DRM is political and anti-user.