2bitencryption

It's a very energetic intensive process, it cracks ribs.

I feel like lately this is becoming more common knowledge - but still something most people don't realize.

Part of it is probably the fact that it's impossible to depict "real" CPR in popular culture (movies, TV shows, etc) unless the production goes to extreme lengths to use a fake dummy. Even on The Pitt (which seems to make a point of being hyper realistic) I've seen them do "fake" CPR with shallow compressions.

I've found most of the differences to come not from the socket API, or the logical behavior, or CLI differences. But instead from assumptions Docker makes, that it's running rootful, when Podman will not (by default).

As such, most of the fixes for Podman/Docker incompatibilities is just addressing that assumption with a few extra flags on the Podman commands to change how the user namespace maps between the container and the host, etc etc.

I live moments away from this roundabout. It's confusing. Single-lane roundabouts are really straightforward. You're either clear to enter, or you're not.

Adding lanes makes it far more confusing. I consider myself, you know, pretty smart. Not stupid, at least.

But I almost sideswiped someone in this roundabout the other day. Years of driving experience gave me an intuition that the middle lane would not cross over the outer lane. E.x. a car in the inner lane would not pass through the outer lane (except at the very end). So when I saw an oncoming car in the inner lane I thoguht I was safe to enter the outer lane. Not so. The inner lane car was actually lane-changing to the outer lane (at the exact point I was about to enter the roundabout) in order to exit.

tl;dr - within the container, the exploit works, and elevates to root (uid 0) within the container - BUT because that namespace actually maps to uid 1000 (the user) outside the container, the escalation does not flow up to the host.

But… does this escape the container? If not (the author seems to indicate it does not) then does it matter if you are in Docker or rootless Podman, right, since the end result is always: you have elevated to root within the container. If the rest of the container filesystem isolation does its job, the end result is the same? Though I guess another chained exploit to escape the container would be worse in Docker? Do I have that right?

Not exactly. One can be charged with stalking, even though the offender only went to places in public that the victim also went to. If combined with a pattern of behavior that, in aggregate, infringes upon the rights of the target, it can become a crime.

The interesting part, for anyone who actually reads the article - the change was fixed in an RC and then reverted in the final release.

Which implies there was some regression, some issue, some incorrect behavior or negative impact. One has to wonder… what could it have been? What could the issue with having a more accurate clickbox for the corner of the window possibly be?

Given that the video is fully interactive and lets you move around (in a “world” if you will) I don’t think it’s a stretch to call it a world model. It must have at least some notion of physics, cause and effect, etc etc in order to achieve what it does.

I’m not sure about “dumb them down”, I suspect it’s more like “subtly influence popular opinion”.

My husbands TickTock feed is full of things like “10 things Americans do that Chinese think are weird”, “10 reasons Chinese cities are in the 22nd century” etc etc.

I personally don’t think that’s propaganda - most of it is factually true and would be pushed to the front of any fair algorithm because it is engaging. But I can kinda see the concern, even though I disagree with the outcome.

Would they? There are already data residency laws, and the US didn’t have to be on any foreign adversary list for those to work, right?

if (big if) you trust the execution environment, which is apparently auditable, and if (big if) you trust the TEE merkle hash used to sign the response is computer based on the TEE as claimed (and not a malicious actor spoofing a TEE that lives within an evil environment) and also if you trust the inference engine (vllm / sglanf, what have you) then I guess you can be confident the system is private.

Lots of ifs there, though. I do trust Moxie in terms of execution though. Doesn’t seem like the type of person to take half measures.

the ripgrep codebase is ultimate “pour a drink, settle into your coziest chair, and read some high quality software” codebase. Just click around through it and marvel.

Interesting, how many seconds of 2Gbps transfer do I get before I reach my monthly cap and they start throttling me?

Jokes aside, I'm curious how this is even possible over decades-old cable. I get there's a new DOCSIS standard, but I'm less interested in the protocol and more interested in the simple physics of it. How can a simple coaxial cable cram so much bandwidth?

The story you're thinking of is about Brian Wilson, the creative force behind the Beach Boys and one of the only real artists of the time who could arguably be considered a peer of The Beatles.

Personally I've never seen a really strong source for that story, only anecdotes. I think it's an oversimplification to say "Strawberry Fields" made Brian Wilson insane. Instead, he was in a mental decline already. The pressure of "Brian Wilson is a genius" was getting to him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wilson_is_a_genius

There's a similar story with stronger sources, though. If you want to know about Brian's state of mind around that time, listen to his song Heroes and Villains. Basically, Brian worked on this song like it was his magnum opus, trying to reach the level of Sgt. Pepper. Quoting from Wikipedia (sue me):

For Wilson, the single's failure came to serve as a pivotal point in his psychological decline, and he adopted the song title as a term for his auditory hallucinations.

In the September/October 1967 issue of Crawdaddy!, journalist and magazine founder Paul Williams wrote that the song "originally had a chorus of dogs barking, cropped when Brian heard Sergeant Pepper, and was in many ways - the bicycle rider - a far different song."[39]

Wilson held onto the final mix of the song for about a month. On the evening of July 11, 1967, he was told by his astrologer (a woman named Genevelyn) that the time was right for the record to be heard by the public. Without informing Capitol, Wilson called his bandmates and, accompanied by producer Terry Melcher, traveled by limo to personally deliver a vinyl cut of the record to KHJ Radio.[72] According to Melcher, as Wilson excitedly offered the record for radio play, the DJ refused, citing program directing protocols.[77][78] Melcher recalled: "Brian almost fainted! It was all over. He'd been holding onto the record [and] had astrologers figuring out the correct moment. It really killed him. Finally they played it, but only after a few calls to the program director or someone, who screamed, 'Put it on, you idiot!' But the damage to Brian had already been done."[79]

And this is all the tip of the iceberg. To have an even better understanding, you'd need to listen to the Smile! sessions, and the eventual 2004 "completed" recording of Smile!.

Personally, I think Brian was a genius (well, is; he's still alive, though not looking too good these days, sadly). But unlike The Beatles, who were four friends with an unbelievably tight bond (even after their breakup), Brian had no one else in the Beach Boys who could match him. And I think it was a weight on his shoulders, and that combined with the drug use (and likely a stroke at some point, which is obvious if you ever hear him speak post ~1968) brought his downfall.

Is there any company even remotely close to competing with Starlink in the "global satellite ISP" space?

I remember reading somewhere that literally most of the satellites orbiting earth are Starlink satellites. As in, more than half of all satellites are Starlink.

Obviously that statistic does not mean they have a successful business, that there's enough of a market, etc etc.

But one can imagine the types of services you can supply in just a few years to customers when you have by far the largest satellite constellation in the sky, with global coverage, and the ability to launch dozens of new satellites at low cost.

/r/LocalLLaMA/ is such an interesting mix of academia/researchers (it was called out in a recent paper, regarding context length, IIRC) and odd anarcho-futurist weirdos. And I kind of love it for that.

If you're even slightly interested in getting into jailbreaking/hacking of devices, the Kindle is a great place to start.

There's a lot of low-hanging fruit there. Particularly because the device has a USB port and, by design, exposes a user partition that you can read/write to (so you can upload files and documents and ebooks to the device).

There's definitely been an effort by Amazon to lock them down, but just taking your reverse-engineering tool of choice and decompiling their firmware binary will give you tons of readable code to dig through. They use a mix of java, native c, and javascript.

Fun fact, at startup the Kindle looks for certain files in the user partition, with certain naming patterns. You can, for example, disable the screensaver by dropping a file with a special name there. They patched this once, but after doing a grep for the user-partition mount location (to see all the places in their code where they read from user partition files) I was pretty quickly able to find another way to do this. It's fun stuff.

I use Obsidian daily and love it.

However, I'm not very disciplined with it. I don't have a "process". It's just my scratchpad with daily notes that end up being disorganized and gibberish.

Does anyone have a good process they follow with Obsidian? A good template, a good, disciplined strategy to stay organized? I'd love to hear it, please share :)

A few years ago I tried the very first Headspace meditation courses, back when Headspace was pretty new.

It was great! I loved it. I really felt like the narrator was knowledgeable and had something to teach me. His explanations for the process actually made sense, and weren't woo-woo mumbo jumbo. Perhaps it is all placebo effect, but even if so, the effect worked for me perfectly.

The problem is, as the industry exploded, it became harder and harder to find meditation guides that have that quality.

Even on Headspace, which I used to love, there's only so much they could provide, before the demand necessitated putting out meditation guides that are more and more ridiculous ("meditation for doing the dishes", "meditation for walking the dog", etc).

And I haven't found any guides that help me to the degree that the original Headspace ones did. Would love it if anyone has any recommendations.

(of course, you might say "you don't need a guide once you know how to do it", but personally I find it really hard without some recorded guide helping me along)

maybe running a schema validator against the output and re-requesting on your behalf

this is the part that blows my mind. You don't have to do this! You don't have to sample the entire output, and then validate after the fact.

You're not required to greedily pick the token with the highest score. You get the scores of all tokens, on every forward pass! So why even waste time picking invalid tokens if you're just going to validate and retry later on??

(note: when I say "you" here, I mean whoever is hosting the model. It is true that OpenAI does not expose all token scores, it only gives you back the highest-scoring one. So a client-side library is not able to perform this grammar-based sampling.

BUT, OpenAI themselves host host the model, and they see all token outputs, with all scores. And in the same API request, they allow you to pass the "function definition" as a JSON schema. So why not simply apply that function definition as a mask on the token outputs? They could do this without exposing all token scores to you, which they seem very opposed to for some reason.)

TypeChat: let's try really hard to try to convince the model to make the highest-scoring tokens follow the grammar we want.

Guidance (and this project?): Let's not even bother with trying to convince the model; instead, we'll only sample from the set of tokens that are guaranteed to be correct for the grammar we want to emit.

it still blows my mind that OpenAI exposes an API with Functions calling, and yet does not guarantee the model will call your function correctly, in fact, it does not even guarantee the output will be valid JSON.

When this is, really, a solved problem. I've been using github.com/microsoft/guidance for weeks, and it genuinely, truly guarantees correct output, because it simply does not sample from tokens that would be invalid.

It just seems so obvious, I still have no clue why OpenAI does not do this. Like, why fuss around with validating JSON after the fact, when you can simply guarantee it is correct in the first place, by only sampling tokens if they conform to the grammar you are trying to emit?

What's even more interesting than the mysteries properties of LK-99 is the kind of response it's brought out. You even see it right here in HN.

Have you ever seen a Youtube video about someone reviewing a Tesla or comparing it to another car? The comments are always full of hostile and vitriolic remarks by people who are personally offended if the video suggests the cup holders on a Model 3 are less than perfection. For some reason, Tesla is surrounded by a cult of personality where it's not just a car, it's a lifestyle.

And bizarrely, something similar is happening with this funny floating rocks. Here we are, on HN, and people in this very thread are calling Nature (Nature!) an "online sensational clickbait magazine" because they want to believe the hype that the rock has properties that they only learned about from Wikipedia a few days prior (and only understood 5% of it, at that)

Is there reason to be excited? Hell yeah. Are all the different replication attempts super fascinating? Hell yeah. Could it be the real deal? It could!

But this has become some weird spectator sport, where you're either a believer or a skeptic, and if you're on a different side than I am then screw you, even if you are Nature.

But from the paper, it sounds like this happens only during training. Some trick about constantly re-injecting the system prompt during chat conversations.

But during inference, there's no trick. The system message remains once at the top.

How well does it adhere to the system prompt?

The base Llama-Chat models use something called "ghost attention" (they describe it in their paper). No clue how it works, but the result is, the model sticks to the system prompt extremely well. If you tell it that it's Marvin the Paranoid Android in the system prompt, it will stick 100% to that.

In llama-derived models like Vicuna, if you tell it to act as Marvin the Paranoid Android, eventually the regular "assistant" voice starts to bleed through, after only a few chat turns.

Doesn't sound like a big deal, but in cases where you have strict rules you want the model to follow, then the base llama-2-chat models are far better than any derived ones that do not implement ghost attention.

Questions from a total layman-

Are the superconductivity properties "all or nothing"? Meaning, if you get the synthesis wrong of the material, would you expect it to be "kind of" superconductive? (I guess, a very low, but non-0, resistance)?

Or is it something where it has normal resistance in all cases unless you get it just right, and then it becomes superconducting?

One more question - in physics, it seems like something having a value "0" is never really possible. Like, you can have something with low friction, but not zero friction. We pretend things have zero friction for high school physics problems, but they don't really. Is superconductivity like that? Is it actually, genuinely, exactly 0.0000(...)? Or is it just very close to zero, so close that it can behave like something with zero resistance (but in reality it's resistive, but just barely)?

This is one of those areas where the poor quality of the data influences the output, I think.

There are so many garbage, lazily written product reviews, by websites that only exist to get people to click affiliate links. These sites only have one goal, which is to get you to click an affiliate link and make a purchase. So it is not in their best interest to say "You shouldn't buy this."

Rather, they make a list of "top X Foobars", they start with a really expensive one, then they follow with a more reasonably-priced one, and give it a very positive review. It leads to clicks and purchases.

Given this, it's not surprising to me that even the best LLMs carry pieces of this with them. Ask it to predict text describing some tech product on a sales page, and of course parts of that low-quality data will bleed through.

From the majority: "The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."

From a dissenting opinion: "Today, the court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class."

Remember, the job of the Supreme Court is not to decide what is morally correct or just, but to interpret the Constitution.

the cynic in me says, they're being DDOSd (I mean, they pissed off millions of internet nerds who have their own definition of justice), and instead of admitting it they're using the opportunity to blame the subreddit mods.

then again, not sure why that messaging would be any better for them than admitting to a DDOS...

thanks for the explanation!

denoising in latent space certainly seems like the "correct" path. My (amateur) thinking is, the more you can do in latent space, the better.

Can someone help me understand something about these "roadmaps", the roadmaps that go out 5+ years and define the path of transistor shrinkage?

What I don't understand is... what's preventing a chip fab from leapfrogging a transistor size? Why must there be a gradual process, planned year by year?

If one manufacturer has even a modest lead, can they use this lead to invest in two generations down the line, to keep their lead cemented?

Does the technology that supports X nm transistors become an input to building X-1 nm transistors? Or is each new generation like starting all over again?