That's just the point. Selfhosted runners were the alternative. The only alternative for "runners" is Github-hosted, 200%-markup runners.
Now the only alternative is to move builds, CI, etc. off of GitHub's platform entirely, and maybe your source control as well. In other words, a big pain. Github seems to have entered peak encrapification: the point where they openly acknowledge rent-seeking as their product approach, fully deprecating "building the best, most reliable, trustworthy product." Now it's just "Pay us high margins because the effort to migrate off is big and will take too long to break even."
Genuinely curious about this as well. It's a major bummer that self-hosted infra can't be used to validate GitHub Pull Requests now; basically means I'll have to move my entire workflow off of GitHub so that everything can be integrated reasonably again.
That's not exactly true. You just won't be able to use self-hosted infra to validate GitHub PRs a) using GHA and b) for free.
GitHub still supports e.g. PR checks that originate from other systems. We had PR checks before GHA and it's easy enough to go back to that. Jenkins has some stuff built in or you can make some simple API calls.
We use a combination of GHA and Jenkins jobs. All these end up as checks on GitHub. You could then proceed to say "Allow this PR Merge button if check A is ok and check B is ok" where check A arrived from GHA and check B from a Jenkins job.
Gitea + Gitea Actions works approximately as well as GHA. For GitHub specifically, you're back to setting PR checks + commit status programmatically through the API.
I feel it's not really applicable here. Pihole has the advantage of funneling all DNS traffic (typically UDP/53) to a single endpoint and making decisions about the request.
A user using an LLM is probably talking directly to the service inside a TLS connection (TCP/443) so there's not a lot of room to inspect the prompt at the same layer a Pihole might (unless you MITM yourself).
I think OP has the right idea to approach this from the application layer in the browser where the contents of the page are available. But to me it feels like a stopgap, something that fixes a specific scenario (copy/pasted private data into a web browser form), and not a proper service-level solution some have proposed (swap PII at the endpoint, or have a client that pre-filters).
To me yes, absolutely. In the page's comments, the listed build costs are described as being based on minimal second hand parts costs. One could skip this step and go for used Android phones directly snugly at the same price range for equal or better features/functionality/performance. The hardest part is to sort through ones which have unlockable bootloaders and the like. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to hack on hardware, quite the opposite, just it's not leading to a hardware assembly at jaw dropping prices (even if you consider the used part sourcing/shipping and assembly effort 100% free).
To others, it depends what "it" in the page even is to them. I'm sure someone would say "but I want to find exactly a 3.92 inch 1080x1240 resolution AMOLED touch screen with... as seen here - can you point me to that?" to which I'm not sure the price even matters anymore. The only thing that is 100% this device BOM is this device BOM, for however much that's supposed to be worth saying.
If this is whats in the consumer space I'd imagine the government has something much more advanced. Its probably a foregone conclusion that they are recording the entire country (maybe the world) and storing everyone's movements or are getting close to it.
I just check and it seems to commercial permissiable.Companies like vlm.run and roboflow are using for commercial use as show by thier comments below. So i guess it can be used for commercial purposes.
Yes. But also note that redistribution of SAM 3 requires using the same SAM 3 license downstream. So libraries that attempt to, e.g., relicense the model as AGPL are non-compliant.
You're only allowed to be mad because he called it the "department of war". The premise that the US always needs more weapons and should be fighting constant wars must go unchallenged.
reply