> Same with PCs... do you really want to run that *.exe you downloaded from that cool site you found?

Yes, I am fully capable of making decisions about what software to run on my personal hardware on my own, thanks. I don't need Apple or Google or Microsoft to make this decision for me.

They're trying to fix social engineering. It's simply not possible.

You don't need to belittle someone else's work. It's a series of articles, and author has 2 more articles that aren't related to articles Ciechanowski wrote at all.

It's not? The only 2 options available there are last gen Strix Point (AI 300 series).

This doesn't sound quite right, I think they put a wrong price there.

Bottom cover alone goes for more than that, even without battery or speakers: https://frame.work/sg/en/products/laptop13pro-bottom-cover-k...

So does the screen: https://frame.work/sg/en/products/laptop13pro-display-kit

Agreed - $255 sounded too good to be true. Fingers crossed it doesn't end up too crazy, because that chassis looks good!

I was also surprised by this sentence. It sounds like this is the author's first attempt at running models locally.

Or maybe the author has been running heavily quantized small models all that time — Gemma 4 gguf he's using is Q4 and only 16 GB. In my experience quants like this tend to perform much worse.

You made a few typos in "LaLiga"

I am so glad DuckDuckGo allows blocking specific sites from the search. Just did this for a domain linked in this repository.

It would be nice if DDG made even a token attempt at making their search not shit. I still use it, but mostly out of habit and because I suspect every alternative is also shit.

So now you don't get any hits from "Hacker News" ? :-)

Well, lossless over Bluetooth is a mess currently.

Only 1 codec is capable of that — aptX Lossless. Then, your transmitting device, phone / laptop / etc., needs to be compatible with it, and that's often not the case. Samsung and Apple don't support it.

I bought USB-C Bluetooth dongle that I use with my iPhone for that exact reason. It looks janky, but I think it's worth it.

Discord isn't under pressure to implement these measures globally.

I fully agree that they shouldn't be blamed for kick-starting age verification, because governments are pushing for this all around the world. But it's simply ignorant to pretend that Discord isn't helping these governments to normalise this process with their actions. They're also signalling that businesses are willing to comply and that they have all means necessary to do this.

I wouldn't call it a response, but rather another thing that normalises ID verification online. Now all these governments can use Discord as a reference that (1) this is possible at scale and (2) companies are willing to do this.