jojomodding

The non-profit (the Foundation) pays for specific things but it is not really there to hire people to work on things. It pays for infrastructure work and to pay the existing maintainers who often do review work. It also gives stipends to up-and-coming contributors for Open Source outreach programmes, but this are not really the people who you want to have immediately work on your critical infrastructure code.

Probably criminally liable for bankruptcy as well. At least in Germany (where I am vaguely familiar with the law) you lose bankruptcy protection for debts you take on that are knowingly not covered by existing assets or expected future income. This is usually hard to prove, but if your assets are 0 and there was never a viable plan all along they'll likely found you guilty. This means you become personally liable to the creditors and might also face jail time.

You can tell this is a true success in Germany because 95% of local passengers now use it. It also caused a significant increase in ridership, putting the already overloaded rail system under a lot more pressure while taking away income from the rail companies (after making it cheaper).

Ah, that's what they're building the power plants for. Blasting things into space.

In times like this, I am happy I live in the EU where I can request a company send me a copy of all data they have stored about me. That includes all pictures I ever send to them, or at least a low-resolution preview sufficient for me to realize which picture it is, or at the very least a file listing. Ah yes and they must do so without charging me anything.

The judge will decide if the evidence is admissible or not.

Switzerland already has such a party, the SVP (UDC in French), and in fact they put forward the initiative.

This was widely understood to be a vote on how well the SVP can appeal to the center. Turns out pretty well but it's not entirely surprising given their recent election results.

Newspapers have mechanisms like corrections and apologies that can be used to "right" a published falsehoods.

This relies on me being able to find out if a newspaper lies about me, which is usually easy since we can all go buy the same newspaper. With AI it is much harder to find out that it has been telling potential customers wrong things about my business.

Well, you can use tap code: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tap_code

Or you can use "Morse tap code" where two close knocks represent a dot, and if the gap between them is slightly longer it's a dash. That takes two knocks for one dot/dash but it works and is (was?) used in practice.

Most countries you would consider "developed" in the world (and then some more) switched to having a professional, non-political civil service in the last 100 years, if they hadn't already had one.

Do you think that this maybe indicates something? Or did your analysis stop at the US border? Is it wise to base policies on a system that has not been used in more than 100 years based on the perception that this was some sort of golden age even if a cursory glance around the world show that no country you want to live in is run like that?

Once it shortens the loop, the compiler can also observe that `tab` is a local variable and therefore move the writes up "to the initializer." It can then see that the variable is unused and delete it, and also delete the loop.

Interestingly, the way in which Grothendieck conceived of equality is nowadays being questioned, especially due to the rise of formalized mathematics and Lean. More concretely, there is this fun paper by Kevin Buzzard which deconstructs it: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10387

Money quote:

In this paper I argue that the first assertion above is false, the second is dan- gerous, and the third is meaningless.

This also makes it obvious that at some point, the halting problem becomes "unprovably hard." There must be Turing Machines for which it is independent of the accepted axioms of mathematics whether or not they halt. And indeed, constructing such machines is not too difficult.

There is current research into finding the smallest such Turing Machine. Here is one with 748 states: https://www.ingo-blechschmidt.eu/assets/bachelor-thesis-unde...

That title is a gross misrepresentation of what is actually happening. This is actually about an Iranian Cloud Provider wanting to be added to the public suffix list.

Not sure what is particularly autistic about the observation that "couldn't we just all get along" is unfortunately not how the world works even if we would like it to?

exactly. If they wanted to iterate on their port they would add lifetime annotations here, which are the tool Rust be uses to ensure safety. They're just kicking the unsafety block down the road. This accomplishes nothing and is not how you get Rust to deliver its safety promise.

Or the people that aid and support those people. Systems like this, or the Iranian crackdown on protestors earlier this year, show that in our times, an autocratic regime is able to keep power in spite of significant popular resistance. Revolutions like the fall of communism in 1989/1990 seem impossible now. If you lose democracy once, it's over.

But that's boring. Also it's already happening a lot more than humans are being sent.

Nonvoters implicitly consent to the outcome ahead of time. Which means that they can carry part of the blame--if they didn't like it they could have voted against it.

Is pdf.js the renderer that VSCode uses? You know, the one where everything becomes extremely blurry when you zoom in for absolutely no reason at all except (I would imagine) developer incompetence?

are free to sell 0day for profit.

This is not true in many jurisdictions.

I sympathise with the author and the argument. I know the text is a rant. As such, I can understand that the proposed consequences might not make sense. Yet still, there is a fun game you can play, where you replace AI by "chess engine" and you get a text that would be fitting for a late 90s chess grandmaster but seen as totally anachronistic today:

"Chess players who don't use engines will be left behind", they say. I can't emphasize enough how much I hate it when I hear/read shit like that because I'm pretty sure, in fact, that what will happen is the exact opposite.

People who rely on engines are the ones who will be left behind. They'll forget how to think, how to move the pieces, how to solve a simple straightforward mate in 3, how to tell victory from stalemate... they'll forget how to fucking LEARN. I think that's the part that makes me the saddest. What a beautiful thing it is just to play chess.

If you think Deep Blue can do better than you, why would you just let it? Why wouldn't you aim to be better, to learn how to be or do something that a chess computer would never do?

I do not get why not needing proof objects is desirable. It seems good to have a defined way to store proofs that has a very tight spec and can thus have competing implementations, like in https://arena.lean-lang.org/. The LCF approach couples the proof format to the module system of a programming language.

Occasionally, inspecting that proof term is useful to see what happened in a proof.

Then again, I also like dependent types.

Its a software where you type your maths proofs in and a "yes" comes out. Except if your proof is broken, then a "no" comes out. Of course, sometimes the computer is just a bit dumb at intuiting the intermediate steps, so you need to explain like a 10-year-old child (or else you get a "no" as you failed to convince the computer). And storing all these explanations takes memory. And you have to speak the somewhat idiosyncratic language of the computer, which you can imagine a bit like LaTeX but more easily parseable and less ambiguous.

The blog article author is saying that Lean is like a younger child (that needs more intermediate steps explained), stores proofs more inefficiently (taking more memory) and that its computer proof language is harder to read for humans. Additionally there is a technical point about dependent types, which are the principle around which the computer proof language is organized (the same way a programming language might be organized around object-orientism).

Giving something that has no internal concept of time (or identity for that matter) a prison sentence of n years seems kinda ineffectual.

Nothing is stopping you from using LLMs when contributing to their project (I think). One reason might simply be that they would rather spend the (very sparse) donation money on anything else but tokens.

Tell your kids about FUCK, the most fun way to play with them bricks...

actually his uncle.

And we collectively decided that it's fine, you don't actually need to be able to solve 1234×5678 in your head.

But I am not sure you can compartmentalize the specific skill we can out-source to AI. I would not agree with "you don't need to be able to think in your head."

For a start by not tearing down the systems that kept inequality in check in the past. Like union membership or banking regulation etc. just to name some examples.