fiiv

I do this. Ollama makes it very easy - just pull the model you want. The great thing is the ability to test them in the same tasks, there's a huge difference in comparable models.

You can set it up in your editor of choice - I use Zed, and it's just listed as one of the providers you can choose.

In terms of performance - it works decently well.

Or it could be mostly people fed up with working under shitty conditions.

Seems to be working for me (firefox, safari, chromium). The SSL cert appears to be valid, expire next year and be issued by Amazon.

It could be a block by your country, ISP or possibly if you're using a VPN it might be affecting it as well.

Yes indeed! I'm not surprised there's some difference. One thing I learned doing this is that there's a lot of choices to make when selecting the best icon.

For example, some sites have SVG icons, which are usually superior in both file size and in scalability (compared to raster formats), but if using them in a mobile app in React Native, it would require an additional step to integrate SVG images.

Whoa, I hadn't thought of a sprite sheet, but that's a great idea actually. It shouldn't be too hard to generate one of these. How many favicons in one sheet are you thinking?

This is awesome, going to give it a try!

They're kind of different things. Graal is an attempt to create a polyglot environment. For example, using Python and Javascript in the same environment. For example you might be working on an application where the web server managed by the web team is written in Node and your data scientist team uses Python scripts to deal with the data, but they need to run in the same environment. Graal lets you re-use that environment for both.

Node and Deno are dedicated runtimes to run Javascript using the V8 engine. Both provide a standard library of additional functionality to make them worthwhile beyond just browser code.

> Tech companies (Google, Apple) don't custom-tailor their maps because they want to. They do it because the states use leverage to force them into it. And the states do it to promote the idea that the disputed territory is theirs.

So what? Google wants people to use their map software. By showing variations of the map depending on what the official stance of the regional government is, they are ensuring that their map software is available in that region and fits the context of that country.

There is a Russian narrative for Crimea being theirs. There is a Ukrainian narrative for Crimea being theirs. It's not Google's place to decide between them, it's their place to create a map people can find things on.

It does not matter what you, I or Sundar Pichai believe is the truth of whom Crimea should belong to. Their product is a map and it's available in Russia, Ukraine and Crimea. In fact, by presenting all the credible alternatives in this case (for Russia's side, they currently administrate the region and for Ukraine's, it was very recently their territory), they are being apolitical about it.