I wonder, would these users still use PieFed if they have seen its codebase? Maybe it can be one day but right now it's 100% not production-grade software. Nonsensical hardcoded bans and blocks everywhere. >1000 lines of Python in a single file. Uses regex to parse HTML. The list goes on...

I didn't downvote your comment. But let me argue anyway.

Lots of people flock to PieFed because it is not made by the Lenmy devs who are unpalatably heavy handed in their "moderation" on the ml instance. One would hope this means PieFed offers more freedom to use the software how you like. So it's funny that it's even stricter "moderation" AND NOW ITS HARDCODED so it affects every instance.

lol hardcoded shit everywhere. that codebase is so bad it's entertaining. you should make a standalone post about this here and crosspost to !programming_horror@programming.dev

It is giving you exactly what you ask for.

To people complaining about this: I hope you will be happy in the future where all LLMs have mandatory censors ensuring compliance with the morality codes specified by your favorite tech oligarch.

The article over-dramatizes the story. This "deeply wrong" discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.

Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it's more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).

The only times anyone would use the asterisk as multiplication symbol are

• they are doing some fancy math and it's not the same kind of number multiplication we're familiar with
• they are on a computer, the keyboard does not have a (×) key, and they don't know how to typeset it (\times in LaTex), so they just use the asterisk instead

The US government falls in the second category.

I recommend critically reading the paper. It is quite accessible to those with college-level science background.

Most importantly, it is still highly controversial whether this galaxy rotation direction bias actually exists. If you look at section 4 of the paper, the author is debating against different groups that did similar surveys and found no bias. Someone needs to actually work through this author's methodology as well as those of other groups and figure out what is going on.

If there is indeed a bias, that is super exciting! An anisotropic universe due to being in a black hole would be a very cool explanation. But given the ongoing debate, a general-audience publication like Independent presenting this rotation bias as a given fact is very poor journalism.

Stop depending on these proprietary LLMs. Go to !localllama@sh.itjust.works.

There are open-source LLMs you can run on your own computer if you have a powerful GPU. Models like OLMo and Falcon are made by true non-profits and universities, and they reach GPT-3.5 level of capability.

There are also open-weight models that you can run locally and fine-tune to your liking (although these don’t have open-source training data or code). The best of these (Alibaba’s Qwen, Meta’s llama, Mistral, Deepseek, etc.) match and sometimes exceed GPT 4o capabilities.

If your bowling ball is twice as massive, the force between it and earth will be twice as strong. But the ball’s mass will also be twice as large, so the ball’s acceleration will remain the same. This is why g=9.81m/s^2 is the same for every object on earth.

But the earth’s acceleration would not remain the same. The force doubles, but the mass of earth remains constant, so the acceleration of earth doubles.

Yes, the earth accelerates toward the ball faster than it does toward the feather.

As always, relevant Wikipedia links:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khwarizmi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Knuth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm

The x axis is position. The y axis is energy. The blue box is a potential energy barrier. The red curve shows the wavefunction of a particle at a certain energy level coming in and tunneling through the wall. (the wavefunction actually live on a different y-scale from this plot and is only superimposed here for illustrative purpose, so don’t use the energy y-scale to read into the amplitude of the oscillatory part).

more info: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling