It's a mystery to me why everyone tries to use OnCalendar here, when "n amount of times within a certain timeframe" can be done much more easily with OnActiveSec, in this case that'd be
The online documentation does not suggest that using a generic OpenAI-compatible server is an option, and it once again lists the non-local option first.
> OpenAI-compatible is indeed one of the provider options for Atomic. Ollama and openRouter are separate options to allow for easier selection of models from these specific providers.
Why is this necessary over just presenting the result of `/v1/models`?
You can say it's just the ordering of a dropdown, but to me it seems pretty clear that this thing is developed with the idea that you'll most likely use a SaaS provider.
Yes. Why even call it local-first when local isn't first? Not to mention, for some reason they decided to only support Ollama instead of giving you the option to connect to any OpenAI-compatible server, which would make this work with any other inference server such as llama.cpp and vLLM as well as Ollama. (and also most SaaS inference providers, including OpenRouter, so the custom integration would not be necessary either, https://schizo.cooking/schizo-takes/9.html)
If you release it as GPL or AGPL, it should be pretty difficult to obey those terms while using the code for AI training. Of course, they'll probably scoop it up anyway, regardless of license.
Clicking on "Customize" on the cookie consent banner reveals toggles for the following:
> Analytics Cookies
> Help us understand how visitors interact with our website. We use privacy-first analytics.
Tracking.
> Marketing Cookies
> Used to track visitors and show relevant advertisements.
Ads and more tracking.
> Preference Cookies
> Remember your preferences like language and theme settings.
Do these actually require separate consent, or can they be considered functional?
I would expect that a European digital sovereignty project in which privacy is the whole point would not have a cookie consent banner at all, because it would simply not use any non-functional cookies that would require it. I see the cookie banner as a sort of "mark of shame" that nefarious websites are forced to wear.
Also, I recall hearing that there were plans to make highlighting the "Accept All" button above the other options illegal, because it's a dark pattern that gets people to click the highlighted option more often.
Docker is unusable for build tools that use namespaces (of which Docker itself is one), unless you use privileged mode and throw away much more security than you'd need to. Docker images are difficult to reproduce with conventional Docker tools, and using a non-reproducible base image for your build environment seems like a rather bad idea.