Have you considered Cloudflare R2? It seems like that's one of the very few unmetered-bandwidth file hosting providers?
It doesn't do HLS out of the box (it's just S3-compatible storage, unlike the pricier Cloudflare Stream). But you should be able to do the transcoding yourself: https://github.com/wesbos/R2-video-streaming
Or what are some other good options for Vimeo replacements?
I don't think so — I don't disagree with you there. It was more the parent (the child to your post) I was responding to, about statistics and semantics.
Lol, that's actually kinda cool. Did you get any interesting Eastern responses to your diary entries?
I'm imagining something like...
> Dear diary, I got bullied again today, and the bread was stale in my PB&J :(
>> My son, remember this: The one who mocks others wounds his own virtue. The one who suffers mockery must guard his heart. To endure without hatred is strength; to strike without cause is disgrace. The noble one corrects himself first, then the world will follow.
I don't think this is the unprovable you think it is?
If LLMs and statistics can't encode semantics, how can do chatbots perform long-form translations with appropriate contexts? How do codebreakers use statistics to break an adversary's communications?
Sometimes the statistics are semantic, like when "orange" and "arancia" the picture of that fruit all mean the same thing, but Orange the wireless carrier and orange the color are different. Those are connections/probabilities humans also learn via repeated exposure in different contexts.
I'm not arguing that LLMs are synthesizing new ideas (or old ones), but that they ARE capable of deriving semantic meaning from statistics. Rather than:
> language, based solely on statistical data, shorn of semantics
Isn't it more like:
> language, based solely on statistical data, with meanings emerging from clusters in the data
Wasn't that before the era of hyperscalers? Intel offers nothing of value anymore. What's to stop one for the giants from just swallowing them up like 3dfx or ATI?
I work for a headless CMS, but I think that's a poor fit for your use case. Many of our small customers start off in your situation, where a helpful dev makes them a headless site. A couple years later, the dev moves on, and the client has no way to update their site with new features or sections, and no way to fix it if anything breaks. And we have to explain to them what headless is and why they're in this situation. It sucks for everyone involved.
Go with a regular CMS, like Wix or Squarespace or WordPress. The $10 or $20 a month is still cheaper than having to pay a dev later to fix their broken headless site with old deprecated packages and frameworks that nobody uses anymore.
Headless is a developer optimization, not a client feature. It only makes sense if the dev is a part of the customer's own team, or in an ongoing agency relationship with them. It's a poor fit for freelancers and volunteers because the client ends up with essentially abandonware.
Personally I'd vote for Apache, or a new FOSS group. They don't need all the funding that Mozilla currently gets (most of which isn't spent on Firefox anyway).
I'd rather see that effort than something like Ladybird, personally.
...owning some tiny percentage of stock, often not knowingly. Those same 60% would also benefit from having a less monopolistic Internet. Well, that's the theory at least.
I think a lot of regular users actually might prefer one company that makes all their choices for them so they don't have to deal with decision fatigue so often... the browser wars of the 90s and 2000s were not pretty, either...
They're not mutually exclusive? Especially with antitrust, where the whole point is to enable a healthier marketplace such that all shareholders of Google's competitors can also benefit (not to mention users).
It's not that high-QoL societies cannot have shareholders, it's that the stock market shouldn't take precedence over laws and regulations and anti-trust enforcement.
There's not really a strong incentive to while Mozilla is still around (and despite that, there are still a few forks... Waterfox, for example). I think it would take a collapse of Mozilla, Oracle-style, to really spur that.
(edit: Oracle didn't collapse, I mean what happened to OpenOffice.org.)