There _sort-of_ is. You can pull from registries other than Docker Hub (these can be run by anyone with the will and resources to do so -- GHCR is a popular one), though these may have their own usage restrictions.
You can run your own following Docker's own guide here[0] if you'd like. It's not peer-to-peer in the sense that the lines between clients and servers are blurred, as with torrenting, but it allows for a distributed registry architecture, which I think is the part that matters here.
I don't think it would be possible out of the box: Docker pulls assume a direct HTTP download for the image. It would be pretty cool to build a proxy that acts as a torrent client for images however it would be a lot less ergonomic to use on top of the security risk of tags not being checksums.
In germany its saver to illegally download through usenet because you don't upload and the cost a rights owner can make is only the cost of the product and not an aribrary number of (you puloaded it and created damage of x).
It doesn't make it legal at all, it just makes it no longer interesting for IP owners to sue you.
Wasn't there a ruling like a decade ago that explicitly declared storing illegal, but streaming (download to RAM) is fine as a non-redistributing client?
Of course the rights holder would have trouble proving whether you did save it, but that's a different issue.
Nonetheless its the same thing: if they can prove you watched it, the damage is small for you and because IP holders are splittered, and you didn't just watch content of one, its probably not worth it to sue you.
I'm curious when someone will do the right experiment in a way that some LLM on Cerebras will do the reasoning so well so big so fast, that it does something very novel
I'm following AI news and models for few years now and i have not read about your Grok2 controversy.
Nonetheless, i do not use grok and i do not try it out due to it being part of Musk.
I'm also not aware that Grok2 was communicated as the top model in any relevant timespan at all. Perhaps it just didn't deliver? Or a lot more people are not awaare of how to use it or boycot Musk.
After all he clearly doesn't care for any rules or laws it is probably a very high risk sending anything to grok.
She doesn't say she is an expert on trans-issues at all! She analyzed the studies and looked at data and stated that there is no real transpendemic but highlighed an statistical increased numbers in young woman without stating a clear opinion on this finding.
The climate change videos do the same thing. She evaluates these studies discusses them to clarify that for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.
She is for sure not an expert in all fields, but her way of discussing these topics are based on studies, numbers and is a good viewpoint.
The funding scam you mention is a reference of "these people get billions for particle research but the outcome for us as society is way to small"
Having studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.
Especially not in such politically-charged fields that require deeper knowledge about the historical context, the different interest groups and their biases and so on.
Her video on trans-issues labels people that advocate for the rights of trans-people as "extremists" and presents transphobic talking points as valid part of the scientific discussion.
Her trying to appear "neutral" and "just presenting the science" is exactly the issue. Using her authority as a scientist when talking about topics she has no expertise in.
She does not. She specifically speaks against that kind of thinking. Recently, she stated it as, “Believe arguments, not people.” I couldn’t have said it better.
She makes arguments, forcefully. That’s good. That’s what science is supposed to be. I don’t agree with her on everything, but I find her arguments engaging, and sometimes convincing, sometimes not. But her process is not dogmatic, as you’re trying to make it out to be.
HN mod dang, if you are reading this, I have a question. I was previously given a warning for a post that levied factual criticisms about the quality of source code contributions performed by a woman who had intentionally put work forward into a highly public open source project in her own name.
I had specifically mentioned her by name in my criticisms, and I was given a written warning that doing so went against HN's policy on "targeted attacks" or "targeted harassment" or something similar.
Why is it okay for this user to suggest that the act of this woman presenting her work publicly "is the problem", while it is a HN AUP offense for me to criticize the quality of the source code contributions written by another woman presenting her work publicly?
I'm not requesting enforcement against this user or a retroactive removal of my warning, I'm just trying to understand the difference better to improve the conformance of my own discourse to the intent of HN's AUP.
Interesting question. I'm not sure what "woman" has to do with it since they're both women, but we'll go with it. It would be helpful if you could link your comment, but I guess it's been nuked. Anyway...
Just because you can tie a person to work they have performed using public records does not seem like it should put them on the same level as someone who communicates with and creates work directly to the public, or a public figure. Not even if some of the actual work itself is performed in some open and observable space -- For example I don't think one has any more or less moral right to commentate on and publicly critique the work of a carpenter working on a building scaffold that's easily observable from the public street, than one does about a programmer working on their own idea from their own home in private. That seems like the immediate obvious difference between the two situations you describe. They don't sound equivalent at all, so I don't think you can win your case on that angle.
But work by "non-public-figures" is frequently posted about and commented on at Hackernews. Obviously open source work is a significant source of such discussion simply because it is accessible. Therefore, clearly it's not entirely verboten to talk about that. Is it permitted to criticize? I don't have a particular example at hand but I'm quite certain that I've seen negative opinions about people's work on this site from time to time. I think this is the angle you could argue your case. Was it fair and consistent that yours was called an attack or harassment? Are similar criticisms of work by non-public-figures permitted on here? Without the full context we can't answer that.
In my understanding, one reason Sabine gets readily attacked (as user `cardanome` does here) is because of her criticism of orthodox physics theories. She has famously exclaimed that all cosmological theories supposing a “beginning” of the universe are essentially “a creation myth written in the language of mathematics”.
Read the linked blog post by Sabine again. That’s not what she says at all.
She’s saying something much more specific about the earliest moments (milliseconds!!) of the history of the universe, and before that time, of which we have practically zero observational data, and can’t ever visit even in principle.
She’s arguing against woo, against science fiction, against unsupported what-if musings that are fun to talk about — but are not science.
It is extremely unlikely Dan is reading that, or the posts above yours. HN mods are only human and can’t see everything, that is why members have tools like flagging.
If you want to contact Dan, email HN and make your case. The concat information is at the bottom of the page.
> Having studied physics does not allow you to evaluate studies in completely unrelated field in any meaningful way.
I agree! Before one may touch the pink sceptre, they must be permitted through the gate, and kissed by the doddling sheep, Harry, who will endow them with permission to pass and comment on many a great manor of thing which are simply out of reach of the natural human mind without these great blessings which we bestow. And, amen.
Looking at this HN commentator's behavior, we can see the early stages of a troubling pattern:
They start by attacking a physicist for being "neutral" and "just presenting the science" - exactly the kind of delegitimization of objectivity we see in early stages of information control
Notice how they frame staying neutral as actively harmful - it's not just "wrong," but presented as dangerous because it doesn't take a strong enough stance against what they view as "extremist" positions
Most tellingly, they're not arguing that her analysis is incorrect. Their complaint is that she's even allowing certain viewpoints to be examined objectively at all.
This maps directly to historical patterns where:
1. First you attack individuals for being neutral
2. Then you establish that certain topics are "beyond" neutral analysis
3. Finally you create an environment where examining data objectively becomes seen as suspicious or harmful
This HN comment is a perfect micro-example of this - it's not even sophisticated gatekeeping, it's raw "how dare you look at this objectively when you should be taking my side." This kind of thinking, multiplied across society and amplified by modern media, is exactly how larger patterns of information control take hold.
> for her, certain numbers are unspecific and she also is not coming to a clear conclusion in sense of climate change yes, no, bad, good.
Climate chance is settled science. To claim that "certain numbers are unspecific, so I can't say whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's good or bad" (which, based on your paraphrasing, is what it sounds like she said) is an unacceptable position. It's muddying the waters.
I'm not going to go watch her content about trans people, but it sounds like the same thing: Muddying the waters by Just Asking Questions about anti-trans "social contagion" talking points.
---
EDIT: Okay I went back and watched some clips of her anti-trans video. She takes a pseudoscientific theory based on an opinion poll of parents active on an anti-trans web forum and suggests we take it seriously because "there is no conclusive evidence for or against it," as if the burden of proof weren't on the party making the positive claim, and as if the preponderance of evidence and academic consensus didn't overwhelmingly weigh against it. It's textbook laundering of pseudoscience. You've significantly misrepresented her position.
There's no such thing as "settled science". You can not prove that any scientific consensus has no flaws in the same way you can't prove the absence of bugs in any software. It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.
Yes there is. Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure. Is it likely? No. In the absence of any groundbreaking experimental results, it worth wasting time entertaining germ theory skepticism? Also no.
> It's unproductive to treat science as anything more than an ongoing, constantly improving process.
It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real" in the absence of any experimental results that seriously challenge those theories. Instead, we should put our effort into advancing medicine and fixing climate change, predicated on the settled science which makes both those fields possible.
> Germ theory is settled science. Is it theoretically possible that we'll overturn it? Sure.
You need to understand that every single theory will be improved upon in the future. That means they will change and it's impossible to predict if these improvements will have consequences in different contexts where people incorrectly claim the science is settled.
> It's unproductive to constantly re-litigate questions like "is germ theory true" or "is global warming real"
Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example. I can think of many.
Newtonian physics is still settled science even though we have relativity to give more accurate results in domains where Newtonian mechanics fails. It still holds in all the same places it used to.
You don't seem to understand how scientific models and theories work.
In fact, germ theory of medicine is much the same way. Germ Theory does not explain or predict or account for ALL disease, for example PTSD, and if you build a useful theory for mental illnesses that aren't caused by little creatures of some sort, that doesn't overturn germ theory, it compliments it. A person creating a new theory of how Long Covid hurts people for example may not stick strictly to germ theory, but that would STILL not overturn germ theory.
>Can you think of any cases where the science had nearly full consensus and it was useful to re-litigate? Galileo isn't the only example.
Galileo isn't an example of the science being "settled" and someone radically overturning it. Nobody believed in geocentrism due to "Science", which is also why Galileo had so much difficulty, it was literally a religious matter. Kepler was about as close as we had to any sort of consistent theory to how the heavenly bodies moved, and it was not at all settled, and yet he was still basically right
In actuality, there are remarkably few times where a theory was entirely overturned, especially by a new theory. When we know little enough about a field that we could get something so wrong, we usually don't have much in the way of "theory" and are still spitballing, and that's not considered settled science. If you want a good feeling for what this looks like, go read up on the debates science had when we first started looking at Statistical Mechanics and basics of thermodynamics. There were heated(lol) debates about the very philosophy of science, and whether we should really rely on theories that don't seem like they are physical, and that mostly went away as it continued to bear high quality predictions. The problems and places where theories are not great are usually well understood by the very scientists who work through a theory, because understanding the parameter space and confidence intervals for a theory are a requirement of using that theory successfully.
"Human CO2 and other pollutants are the near totality of the cause of the globe warming" is settled science.
"The globe is warming" is settled science
"Global warming will cause changes in micro and macro climates all over" is settled science
"A hotter globe will result in more energetic, chaotic, and potentially destructive weather" is settled science and obvious
"Global warming is going to kill us all in a decade" is NOT settled science. There is no settled science for how bad climate change will make things for us, who will be worst affected, who might benefit, etc. There is comprehensive agreement among climate scientists that global warming is harmful to our future, and something we have to try and reduce the effect of, prepare for the outcomes of, and adapt to the consequences of, and something that, whether we do anything to combat it, will be immensely costly to handle.
We understand very little about human microbiota (therapies like fecal microbiota transplant, however, are promising) yet germ theory is "settled science"? Interesting.
I just ask to share a text editor and write down my questions. Its critical anyway because often then not its not always clear for tech questions what exactly i asked (linux command for example).
This blocks their screen too.
and yes we do know very soon if you look somewere else, take time or rephrase the question to get more time.
If you able to fake it, at that point you should just get th ejob anyway :P
Because that scary state that you read about in dystopian novels and hear about in dystopian histories is a state that Americans live in at the moment. We are all actually people that are living in an important moment, and should be aware of Normalcy Bias.
I'm not OP but I imagine they might be thinking that Trump will find a way to punish it, with him being a fascist and all. Just imagine you'd had done this with Hitler in 1932. By 1934 your life would basically be over.
I never thought americans were this weak and pathetic. Y'all always screamed about "muh guns" and stuff like that, but now... You're just sitting idly while your new king takes over, even discouraging others to do anything that may upset your supreme ruler?
Ideology is the direction you want to go, not necessarily the way you can go.
Its the same thing with immigration: My ideology is to help everyone and not think that every immigrant is bad. Doesn't mean that i have an issue punishing someone who comes and starts doing crime (after trying to help them nonetheless).
The ideology of right wing people is the other way: They assume all immmigrants are shit, hate them all, fear them but they still know 'the good immigrants' don't mind marring immigrants because these are the good execption immigrants.
The second attitude is the one which can spiral downhill inform of dehuminaztion and genocide.
(To be fair, though I'm not in USA / an American, if we're going to stereotype and generalize unfairly, it seems it's largely the "Muh Guns" folks you refer to that support/vote for Trump and the like).
