Phemist

Clearly, NOBUS can work at multiple levels. DJB previously posted about DES (besides it being weak enough): NSA wanted DES to "drive out competitors", to "reduce the field that NSA had to be concerned about".

Simply reducing the complexity of the standard to "pure ML-KEM" could already be considered enough "NOBUS" to be workable, such that the focus of attacks can be only on it (and bonus NOBUS if weaknesses are already known).

Sure, it's not completely free, but the hardware and implementation points seem relatively minor. Once CRQC exists the capacity will certainly not be unlimited, so there will surely still be use for encryption using ECC and "dragging it around" is not so bad.

How much relative to 70K is this 12L? Sorry, I am not Indian.

Indeed, a clear Freudian slip. The one where you say one thing, but you mean your mother.

I wasn't familiar with Unclothe, so I had to look it up..

Are you sure you did not mean Unsloth?

If an agent makes a tool call, the LLM provider will receive the full context again after the result of the tool call becomes available in order to decide the next move. Everything up to the point of the tool call being made will no longer change and could thus in theory be cached. If the agent makes a ton of tool calls, then for every tool call one should be hitting the cache an equal amount of times.

A new instruction by the user will be appended at the end if it done in the same conversation. Thus only has influence on the cacheability of the original agent prompt, but not of subsequent tool calls.

Left-handed people are often excluded from participating in MRI studies. To my personal dismay, as these studies often paid 25 euros per hour ~20 years ago, a significant sum for my student self that I could not partake in. It has however given me significant doubts about any strong lateralization claims...

Or if you've seen Ted Lasso

Nice! I also found this page very helpful:

https://www.nayuki.io/page/creating-a-qr-code-step-by-step

This is an interactive guide that will break down the process for your specific QR-code.

I meant the ones you see on those infotainment systems in museums that are super durable, but have terrible ergonomics. The show props those up way too much.

The TV Series Devs explores this concept as well. It is decently executed, but it is a bit too cringe for my liking (supposedly world-class "devs" working on those keyboards you often see in museums, the protagonist having a fibonacci-off to establish engineering creds). Anyway, might be fun!

A triple "It's not this... it's that"...

The relations are bi-directional. So you can change AAA -> BAB and BB -> BBB as well.

Not mandatory and at your own risk IMO

In the basis we seem to agree. Note that I am not trying to discourage helmet wearing (nor for governments to do it), just arguing against making it mandatory or even officially advised (for healthy adults) to wear them. Actual cycling safety is in numbers, more than in individually taken measures. This is all discussed in way more depth on reddit btw [0].

but as a simple thought exercise on your argument

I realize could have written the sentence you respond to better, I should have written "and [mandatory helmet wearing] reduces perceived safety", also I said "should" in the sentence preceding the one you quoted, but I should've said that the NL ones ARE against making helmets mandatory for exactly the reasons I specify (and that my opinion is that other rights' organizations SHOULD be against it). Quoted directly from tbe website of the, quite well-regarded and not off their rocker, Fietsersbond [1] (under the header "Veilig gevoel?", translated by kagi):

    The Fietsersbond (Cyclists' Union) isn't against wearing a bike helmet. If you feel confident, you cycle more safely. It can be wise to wear a helmet in high-risk situations, for example, for seniors on e-bikes. Unfortunately, it has been proven multiple times that forcing people to wear a helmet actually backfires. People start cycling less.
    A helmet mandate makes cycling feel more like a dangerous activity—something you should be afraid of. Getting around by bike also becomes more complicated. After all, what do you do with that helmet when you're not wearing it? And what happens if you forget the helmet or if it gets stolen? These are all factors—whether justified or not—that make choosing a bike less convenient.

I wanted to react to your car/seatbelt point, but I realize now you are the same person arguing about what constitutes starting points in the sibling thread. I don't mean to spread FUD and I also disagree that this is indeed FUD. I'm sorry that Austria is not as nice a place for cyclists as you would like it to be. I hope with this oil crisis you will find a way to foment some change re the emancipation of cyclists in your locality or even country.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/ut5fcx/why_is_thi...

[1] https://www.fietsersbond.nl/helmplicht/

It's a big stretch to say that the 70s and 80s was "from the start", when the preceding 30-40 years had seen increasingly car-friendly infrastructure policy and development.

I agree you need to get more people commuting by bike. This is in itself creates a virtuous circle of safety. More cyclists means everyone pays more attention to them, meaning it becomes safer to cycle, meaning more people will cycle, repeat. (And ofcourse more political will etc.)

This is btw also why cyclist's rights organizations (e.g. fietsersbond in NL) should be _against_ mandatory use of helmets. Helmets make it less convenient to cycle and reduces perceived safety, in turn reducing the amount of cyclists and as a result _actually_ making cycling less safe (and the vicious circle ensues).

Even only suggesting that it would be beneficial to use a helmet has this effect apparently, hence the organizations are only willing to state that they are "not against the use of helmets".

Just an interesting second order effect I think. You want to always be careful to optimize for the absolute number of safe rides, and not solely for the relative number of safe rides that might significantly reduce the absolute number of safe rides.

I dont have issues with taking additional steps to make things safer, I have an issue with this solution serving as a vehicle for the marketing of the inevitability of the problem (of cyclists and pedestrians sharing space) by a car manufacturer obviously interested in this problem continuing to exist.

Nope, but now the worldwide geopolitical situation is such that it might at least be feasible?

https://translate.kagi.com/nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschiedeni...

This could serve as the blueprint I guess, skip to the part about the 70s and 80s protests. Collective and popular protests helped by an oil crisis, recognizing vested interests in other modes of transportation (cars) that might want to work against your efforts.

I was not trying to offer a solution, as this will be highly specific to the situation in your locality and pretty pointless for me to spend time on. I am merely identifying this as a root cause, which for some reason strikes a nerve.

Why does Skoda, a car manufacturer, care so much about interactions between cyclists and pedestrians? As you say, a bell that penetrates the car enclosures would be much more useful. I suspect a similar reason why pro-safety helmet lobby groups in NL received a lot of funding from these same car manufacturers. I digress..

For your information, post-WWII infrastructure developments in NL were initially highly car-friendly. This only started to change in the 70s and 80s, when the government started to actually create bicycle-related traffic policy, after collective protests (e.g. popular pro-bicycle protest songs were written, children refused to go to schools unless bicycle paths were laid, etc.) also helped by the oil crisis of the time.

So, no it can't be fixed overnight, but it can be fixed in reasonable time (and not an unspecified amount of decades, political capital and funding). We are even living through a repeated history right now.

In my (Dutch) city, there is this infuriating piece of road where the bicycle path suddenly gets routed onto the kerb, intentionally mixing bikes and pedestrians. I believe the theory is that bikes will go slower so pedestrians don't need to worry about crossing the road as much or something.

That is an unfortunate, probably experimental?, traffic design choice...

I don't mean to disagree that there are situations where this is useful. I'm just trying to offer the perspective from a situation where the root cause as I see it has been fixed (to a high degree).

The OP seemed to suggest that people wearing ANC headgear should stop doing so, but both the bell and the ANC-wearing pedestrians are a non-issue in my lived experience.

It would be a shame if these "cyclist-pedestrian ANC-wars" distract from the real issue, that cyclists are not, but should be, a fully emancipated participant in traffic and infrastructure should be designed with cars (to a degree), bicyclists AND pedestrians in mind.

Which, seems to me, is the actual problem that should be solved.

The real problem is that cyclists and pedestrians apparently in some countries share space commonly enough that this is necessary?

In the Netherlands, bicycle utopia, I cannot remember the last time I used my bell to alert a pedestrian of my existence. Granted, I never cycle in Amsterdam, but that is a special location where high-powered ship horns are probably required.

Regarding ANC, I naturally turn it off while cycling on my Bose Quiet Comfort II, as the ANC will try (and fail) to cancel the noise from the wind. I don't think this is a solved problem? So for bicycle-to-bicycle alerting, this also seems overkill.

Nice! The example should imo say

apfel -o json "Translate to German: apple" | jq .content

The dark forest is conditional on that it does not require huge amounts of resources to eradicate another civilization and that (over time) the universe turns out not to be of a scale enormous enough (and in the book there are agents working to actively make it smaller).

Bringing it back to the dark forest of idea space, it is an interesting question whether the the space of feasibly executable ideas being small (as this essay assumes) is inherently true, or more of a function of our inability to navigate/travel it very well.

If the former, then yes it probably is/will be a dark forest. If the latter, then I would think the jury is still out.

So the satellite can know where the ship is, because it knows where it isn't? Then it's a simple matter of subtracting the isn't from the is, or the is from the isn't (whichever is greater)?

Well, the largest ad tech company on the planet owning the largest platform to view content on (Chrome) certainly may or may not have something to do with the viability of alternative payment models.

Similarly in the pilot episode of Designated Survivor. "Let's nuke Teheran" was seen as a valid, and brilliant, tactical move in order to get negotiations with Iran to go Kiefer Sutherland's way.

W3C are dragging their feet on WebNFC: https://github.com/w3c/web-nfc/issues/355, which prevents the talking "to the NFC in your passport" flow from being fully implementable in a website (hence requiring you to install an App). Not sure what the current state of this issue is, or if this github issue represents the latest developments in it, but AFAIK it is one of the MAJOR blockers for a fully web-based flow.

More importantly iMessage