seanhunter

“Tat” means miscellaneous junk.

That said, the anecdote is made up or important details have been elided to make it sound more interesting than it is. Amazon doesn’t depend on whatsapp for 2fa. You can configure amazon 2fa to send an SMS and it’s possible that the poster’s mother has misconfigured her phone to claim that it needs whatsapp to read the sms 2fa message but I highly doubt even that. When I look on amazon it allows passkeys, regular TOTP like with DUO authenticator or google authenticator or whatever or SMS with a backup of sending the TOTP code to the registered email on the account. Whatsapp isn’t even an option.

I don’t think that’s true. Lots of mathematicians excel at (and revel in) finding weird counterexamples and love the strangeness of it all. John H Conway being my favourite- Look up the Conway knot[1] or the Conway base 13 function[2] for famous examples.

Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. Lots of counterexamples are very beautiful. For example, the Dirichlet function (f(x) = 1 if x is rational, 0 otherwise) is a source of very beautiful counterexamples. Eg it is discontinuous everywhere but f restricted to only rational numbers is continuous on all rationals and likewise f restricted to irrationals is continuous on the set of irrationals (R-Q).

[1] The Conway knot has 11 crossings yet shares the same Alexander polynomial as the “unknot” which has no crossings at all. It took 50 years to decide the question of whether it has a basic property known as “sliceness” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_knot

[2] Conway’s base 13 function Was invented as a counterexample to the converse of the intermediate value theorem. That is, it satisfies the intermediate value property while being everywhere discontinuous (which breaks my brain completely) https://digitalresearch.bsu.edu/mathexchange/wp-content/uplo...

It's no different other than it's a layer of indirection which allows bash to change in a way that would not be possible if scripts directly referenced /bin/bash or /usr/bin/bash. The only thing you can't change is the /usr/bin/env binary itself but that's not something that changes very much if at all. On my nix box, bash is at /run/current-system/sw/bin/bash and "current-system" is a symlink to a particular build in /nix/store. So /usr/bin/env is creating a layer of indirection so if I rebuild the system, the previous version can be kept around and I can roll back instantly at the boot menu and it will roll everything back to a consistent package set. Now as I say, you could achieve this in other ways eg fs snapshots etc. But to say that the change doesn't give you anything is just very obviously wrong.

And you don't need to worry- it's perfectly obvious how deep your Nix expertise is.

Yes. Riemann gives them in the paper, including derivation, it’s just a bit annoying to type/read them here because hn doesn’t support mathjaxx.

https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Wilkins-...

That’s a weird rant which is manifestly false. On Nix the benefit you get from the incompatibility is the system can roll forward and back while it’s running so you can do big changes (eg updating or rolling back) the entire system without affecting running processes. You can also run groups of processes in isolation with different sets (or versions) of packages from the rest of the system.

It’s fair to argue about whether those things are really important or whether nix does this in the best way, but to claim that the only benefit is incompatibility is just obvious nonsense.

It doesn’t change if you apply it to complex arguments does it?

Zeta(z) = 1 + 1/2^z + 1/3^z + …

Where z in C.

In fact, I thought that was why it’s called the Riemann zeta function. Euler applied it to an integer whereas Riemann applied it to complex arguments.

Edit to add: my memory was correct. Reimann extended Euler’s definition to all complex s not equal to 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Number_of_Primes_Less_T...

This line of thinking doesn’t really go anywhere. You can say “but what if <something outside of an axiomatic system>? Then <axiomatic system> doesn’t apply!”

Well great. Then where are you? You are precisely nowhere. You haven’t disproved the results in the system and you haven’t proved anything else.

Hn has entered “bro do you even lift?” Territory.

Neither. You can hear them if you listen carefully, just the recording tech plus lack of amplification makes it harder than modern music.[1]

Source: have degree and postgrad in jazz and used to be a bass player. Have made transcriptions of early bass players from original recordings. (by ear without any kind of fancy tech)

[1] and the playing technique for various reasons.

That just means lots of people are writing calls[1]

[1] ie are happy to be synthetically short the stock and see a demand for the calls

That is true for the stocks but not options. Anyone with a brokerage account can write some calls and if they get exercised it’s up to them to find the stock to buy. Most pricing models assume the liquidity is always available but that’s not necessarily the case.

Trademark law isn't about what "everyone already knows". It's about whether a given mark meets the criteria for legal protection in a give context. So if say an foss ML project described what they do as "open AI" the company known as OpenAI would have a right to defend the mark. This is saying they could not.

Exactly. And you can always create a non-priv user and do the llm stuff using that user.

I would if necessary but then again I’m not the one claiming it can’t be done am I? All the examples you gave would require just one llm group and one directory readable and writeable by the user and the llm group (and possibly making the directory setgid the llm group so files in that directory are group owned by the llm group by default). You don’t need a new group for every task just for every logical access role you need. And if you need something more granular than that then there are filesystem acls but I am yet (in 30 years of using unix) to come across a situation that genuinely required them as opposed to being doable just using groups.

All of those use cases are very easy to facilitate using filesystem permissions and groups.

It has always been very easy to create separate users on Linux and certainly for tasks where you need to switch between contexts.

Linux is a unix, so has always been multi-user and sharing any data between processes is facilitated in all manner of ways. So context could be shared over files or unix-domain sockets or shared memory or tcp or udp sockets or via message passing or … a bunch of other ways. That has been the case since 1996 or so when I started using it certainly.

Courts already do lawfully regulate the “presentation of speech” as you’re calling it. Say facebook was to present each post surrounded by pornography for example. That’s clearly a “presentation of speech” in your framing. However courts have decided that it is possible to regulate the circumstances under which that would or would not be ok and 1A arguments have not prevailed in that case.

With the default arguments in the 1990s strip wouldn’t strip “linking information” it would just strip debugging symbols. You wouldn’t have been able to debug a core dump say but dynamically linked binaries would have been totally fine.

Hence the “something like”. There are a few of these sorts of things. I’m not really in the market for them so I don’t try to keep up.

People who want protobuf but better often settle for something like cap’n proto https://capnproto.org/

There is an accounting explanation for this (boring as it sounds). Stock analysts (who don’t want to use their brains too much) often use “EBITDA” (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization) to compare companies. The reasoning is that those items can often be used in “creative” ways to make a company look better than it is so strip them out before comparing.

Starlink sats are launched into a decaying orbit so after something like 5 years they burn up and need to be replaced. It is very flattering to SpaceX’s financials to launch lots of satellites if you look at it from an EBITDA point of view because it basically looks like they have a lot of recurring earnings even though 20% per year has to be amortized because it burns up in the atmosphere.

Use incognito/private browsing mode to get a genuine sense of whether something isn’t in the index or whether google decides that even though you’re asking for it you probably don’t want it.

My most recent fun fact about chemistry is that the shape of the periodic table is as a result of the symmetry group of a sphere. This was part of this great talk https://www.youtube.com/live/btlQl93qOhc?is=7v7GQ92ozW_kpQtk

This is a guy who famously said “Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people.“[1]

I don’t think self-awareness is really his thing.

[1] https://www.entrepreneur.com/science-technology/read-the-con...

Please stop spamming the same comment in multiple subthreads. Also it’s pretty clear you are applfanboysbgone and have created an alt account for this knowing what you are doing is against guidelines and are doing it anyway.

The constituency gets a significant upgrade over their current mp.

It’s a horrible saying in that context also.

When I was young I learned this cool trick to tie a bowline one-handed. Can’t remember who taught it to me but the idea is if you are hanging from a rope by your left hand, you can actually (with a bit of practise that you hopefully do beforehand) tie a loop around yourself with a bowline using your other hand. Moot in my case because there’s no way I could hold my weight using my left hand even if my life depended on it, but it’s a fun trick.

https://youtu.be/tHVjMWTPx-A?is=dftRVkzz67Il1I-Q

I like the “everything is a distribution” approach a lot[1]. Looks great. I’m looking forward to actually having a chance to mess around with it.

[1] And feels philosophically like the unification in the underlying maths between discrete and continuous probability that you get when you apply measure theory

Does it still count as a Dirac delta when it’s a discrete distribution? (The distributions in TFA are not continuous - they are things like a roll of 1d6 etc)