31–40 of 126 posts
Can anyone recommend a resource for how to (architecturally) handle communication with a device over i2c? That is where I am kinda stuck atm when it comes to programming a GPS device. Backstory: at one point I was trying to use elixir/nerves on an rpi to manipulate a few sensor modules to try and produce a race lap timer for motorcycles: https://github.com/whalesalad/rabbit/blob/master/lib/rabbit/... I bit off more t…
Additionally, search on the wiki of i2c.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please reformulate your argument, and I will check back tomorrow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ LLMs are rules based search engines with higher dimension vector spaces encoding related topics. There is nothing intelligent about these algorithms, except the trick ones play on oneself interpreting well structured nonsense. It is stunting kids development, as students often lack the ability to intuitively…
(Shrug) If you're retired or independently wealthy, you can afford that attitude. Hopefully one of those describes you. Otherwise, you're going to spend the rest of your career saying things like, "Well, OK, so the last model couldn't count the number of Rs in 'Strawberry' and the new one can, but..." Personally, I dislike being wrong. So I don't base arguments on points that have a built-in expiration date, or that…
The point was there is nothing intelligent (or AI) about LLMs except the person fooling themselves.
In general, most template libraries already implement the best possible algorithms from the 1960s, and tuned for architecture specific optimizations. Knowing when each finite option is appropriate takes a bit of understanding/study, but does give results far quicker than fitting a statistically salient nonsense answer. Several study datum from senior developers is already available, and it proves LLMs provide zero benefit to people that know what they are doing.
Note, I am driven by having fun, rather than some bizarre irrational competitiveness. Prove your position, or I will assume you are just a silly person or chat bot. =3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open source if it's not. Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is open to read, for me it's open source. The website you linked is an opinionated view on what open source is.
That’s called “source available”. Open source colloquially implies open license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine. It's just not open source. Don't call it open source if it's not. Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Not everyone agrees with this definition. If the source is open to read, for me it's open source. The website you linked is an opinionated view on what open source is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the FSF/OSI are big on emphasizing that "free/open" means more than exposing the designs and mechanisms; it means guaranteeing certain freedoms and rights to the users of your software. what you're describing is usually called "source-available".
If open source doesn't specify a license that is it under then you should only assume that the source has been made available. Both GPL and Apache licensing are considered open source, even though apache is more permissive for commercial derivatives. No one calls GPL "source-available" in common conversation regardless of OSI's opinion.
>Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. The original, 4-clause BSD license has not been accepted as an open source license and, although the original is considered to be a free software license by the FSF, the FSF does not consider it to be compatible with the GPL due to the advertising clause.