jovial_cavalier

that is the whole point of an index fund - they buy whatever is in the index so you can get exposure to the total market. The scandalous thing is that an IPO'd company is going to have a lot of volatility for weeks to months after it goes public, so they typically do not allow any newly listed company to be included in the index for up to one year. This is for the benefit of retail. People have put their entire life savings into these funds because they are viewed as the optimal tradeoff between risk and return. Those people are now contractually obligated to either sell everything or expose themselves to spacex's IPO price movements.

idk if you're comparing like-for-like here. I think on EC2, other customers can balloon up to fill your idle time because they're running on the same physical hardware. What this is talking about is renting hardware that is exclusively earmarked for your usage, so your compute is not fungible with other customers. It's more correctly priced against buying your own hardware and maintaining it yourself.

You don't even need to argue that you're better than the AI. The point is that the client could have uploaded it to ChatGPT too. Perhaps they even did, and they didn't like the answer they got. They are sending it to a human because they want a human to do the work. If you were to send back ChatGPT output, that would be fraud.

The kloc fallacy never actually disappeared. Project and engineering managers got wise to the fact that it was only loosely correlated with shipping features, and stopped emphasizing it. Most everyone else has carried on silently believing it without really thinking about it. And of course engineers themselves have always believed it. How many times have you heard some guy talk about how he wrote 10kloc over the weekend as a brag?

The problem is literacy. Even if you can read and write, that does not mean you can reduce a complicated idea into text. It also doesn't mean you can decode ambiguously worded and poorly structured writing. A meeting is often needed; not because the relevant people can't be bothered to write their thoughts down, but because they literally are not capable of doing it.

I've seen many grotesque misunderstandings go through 30 iterations of confusion across teams because nobody is good at communicating clearly. Then one 20 minute in person meeting clears it up.

I really want a linux virtual filesystem that does this.

Yes, lots of little web services and such run as unprivileged users, not root. I personally run a bunch of stuff as very restricted users in containers, with the threat model being that e.g. an RCE exploit in one of them will only affect the service, not the broader system.

probably because the shell on TempleOS is actually a HolyC REPL, and HolyC is JIT compiled.

Frankly, very few people should be taking either of these drugs. Sometimes I forget how often people pop these things, it's really crazy. Consider just having a headache and dealing with it.

a cop works for "the state," but he's definitely not a "state-level actor."

Until they talk about being able to remove Edge, they aren't serious.

If Microsoft leadership thinks that they took a wrong turn in the last few years, they are in for a rude awakening (I hope). They took a wrong turn in the late 90s. Probably earlier than that. They have managed to stave off all user feedback for 30 years through litigious bullying and strict vendor lock-in. This isn't about the taskbar, man. This isn't even about Copilot.

The pushback which you are only now starting to perceive is being caused by an entire generation of Microsoft intentionally and actively positioning itself in conflict with its customers.

I understand that once you have a million customers, you can't really treat them right anymore. But Microsoft has not given a single shit about customer feedback, even in aggregate for decades now.

As I read this, all I can think is "too little, too late." I have watched in my workplace Windows go from being a product that we are happy to purchase to yet another piece of technology that we would simply replace were we not yoked to it.

I guess even now they probably still don't care. Microsoft will continue printing money until the sun burns out.

https://www.unihertz.com/products/jelly-max

why does everyone freak out about this terminal whenever it's posted?

So the chefs are preparing food that has the same macros as ultraprocessed meals (I assume like tv dinners or something?) Why do they keep referring to the freshly-prepared food as "ultraprocessed"?

    “Is this processed or unprocessed?” I asked.

    Kozlosky smiled. “Ultra-processed,” she said. “Lots of participants can’t tell the difference.”

I thought I understood the study but now I'm not sure. I thought the idea was to take the exact same thing you'd get in a tv dinner and make it fresh, so no freeze drying, no preservatives, etc. Then if that food on its own causes the same pattern of health issues, we know it's simply a diet problem. It sounds like they replicated that effect. So they got evidence that ultraprocessing doesn't actually matter all that much?

I'd argue that those are actually very performance critical because if it takes 5 seconds to unlock your phone, you're going to get a new phone.

The point is taken, though, that seemingly the performance is fine as it is for these applications. My point was only that you don't need to be running state of the art LLMs to be using vector math with more than 4 dimensions.

A ton of vector math applications these days are high dimensional vector spaces. A good example of that for arm would I guess be something like fingerprint or face id.

Also, it doesn't just speed up vector math. Compilers these days with knowledge of these extensions can auto-vectorize your code, so it has the potential to speed up every for-loop you write.

The BBC has also been posting classic Doctor Who episodes for free.

https://www.youtube.com/@ClassicDoctorWho

The entire quoted section in the middle adds nothing. It just keeps repeating the same things over and over, and it doesn't answer the question of how we know the offset at all. Makes me think his "friend" is an LLM.

https://github.com/ublue-os/bazzite/commits/main/?after=e49f...

Antheas was the #1 most active developer, and responsible for almost all low level integrations.

I can make corn too. I go to the supermarket and hand them these little green pieces of paper, and then I have corn.

Seriously, what does this prove? The AI isn't actually doing anything, it's just online shopping basically. You're just going to end up paying grocery store prices for agricultural quantities of corn.

You can actually act on the advertisements and coupons, though. And the companies who sent those offers to you are obligated to abide by them. This potentially would be like if you got a BOGO coupon in the mail and when you tried to redeem it, they just pretended like it didn't exist.

Unused RAM is wasted. But used RAM is also wasted, sometimes. If I can accomplish the same thing with less RAM, that's better, because it lets me do other things at the same time. It doesn't mean I'm not going to use that RAM, that would be pointless. My desktop running dwm typically idles at ~50GiB RAM usage from random crap I've got running. But I can prove that the desktop is using no more than like 300MiB.

The point of an IRB is to stop you from nonconsentually sterilizing people. As long as the system stops that from happening, I don't care about the paperwork. It's not my concern.

The "ethical" issues with this study do not rise to the level that I care, so the only objection is that they didn't get the IRB to rubber stamp it beforehand, which I also don't care about.

See another comment I made in this thread about GKH's response - the UMN group submitted a handful of small patches as part of this study, and "wasted" probably a handful of man hours or at worst a few man days of maintainer time. I don't really consider it a waste because evidence that critical open source infrastructure doesn't bother to run static analysis before merging code from randos is actually useful information that the public deserves to have.

GKH's response was to waste man weeks or man months of maintainer time persecuting every last commit that happened to come from umn.edu, despite having zero reason to believe these commits were more suspect than any other institution's commits.

1) They did not hit stable. GKH is referring, in this email, to a legitimate attempt to contribute from a student at UMN. Whether or not this student was part of the hypocrite commits study, I don't know. But it's not a hypocrite commit, just a normal buggy commit. You can tell, because it's from a umn.edu email address, which they did not use for hypocrite commits.

2) I don't actually care about the internal policies of UMN's IRB. Whether or not the study's approval was proper and whether they would get into trouble with their boss is not my problem. The point is that what they did is obviously not immoral or unethical.

No one likes being cheated out of work that they did, especially when a lot of it is volunteer work.

You know what would really be wasteful of volunteer hours? Instituting a policy whereby the community has to trawl through 20 years of commits from umn.edu addresses and manually review them for vulnerabilities even though you have no reasonable expectation that such commits are likely to contain malicious code and you're actually just butthurt. (they found nothing after weeks of doing this btw)

I don't believe they revealed that they were hypocrite commits at the time of their acceptance, that was only revealed when the paper was put on a preprint server. But they did point out the problems to maintainers before the changes were mainlined.

1) once hypocrite commits were accepted, the authors would immediately retract them

2) I don't think it's unethical to send someone an email that has bad code in it. You shouldn't need an IRB to send emails.