sharperguy

I would love it if I could disable bluetooth on the TV. I have never connected it to any network and its still blaring "HELLO SOMEONE NEARBY HAS AN LG TV" to the entire neighbourhood 24/7.

No blockchains here. Nostr is just a standard signed message format being relayed by simple store and forward relay servers.

Sadly many of those countries are now in the EU which will force them to adopt similar legislation

seamlessly jumping from local to remote sessions is something ive been hoping for in zellij for quite a while so if herdr supports this it could be interesting.

Until I try it, though, I don't think I'll understand why it needs a specific feature for running an agent tool in a side panel, which is appartently one of it's main selling point.

They are talking about mandatory on-device scanning. E2E doesn't solve this.

I'm not certain that local police forces are always consulting the NSA or Palantir to find out who is behind a particular account. I would guess that the vast majority of arrests for offensive posts were made openly under a real identity, with only the most extreme cases leading to a deeper investigation.

The biggest angle for me is censorship. You associate your online identity with your legal identity, there is no longer any recourse if you are banned from a platform. You could easily be arrested if your posts are determined to be 'offensive' in some manner considered to be in breach of the law, or simply have no ability to rejoin a platform under a new identity, or have identities across multiple platforms banned in parallel.

I've found that many people are actually in favor of these when they believe that it will only be enforced against people they disagree with. I'm hoping that people will be more likely to listen when they realize that their enemies may in future be able to get into power and change the definition of what is 'offensive', 'misinformation' or 'disinformation' to their own personal opinions.

Doesn't _have_ to be except not enough voters can tell the difference which is exactly the goal.

You could implement it this way:

- the first time you select a directory it must be empty

- you can drag files in there afterwards

- the directory gets whitelisted for future use

Probably has bad usability, but would be more secure.

Considering the Trump administration's policy on Isreal / Palestine / Iran seems to be a direct follow-on from the previous administration, I'm not so sure about that assertion.

In a two party system, do you vote for the party that promises small government and never delivers, or the party that promises bigger government and does delive?

I can't find a Pi Zero 2 W for sale anywhere that will deliver to me

Free speech doesn't mean that we don't desire filters. Go check your gmail spam folder. Twitter would look identical to this with filters at all. What we really want is:

* transparency about the filters we have on our feeds

* the ability to tweak them if they're not working

* the ability to change providers without losing your entire social graph / reach

So in future we will have "retro" streaming platforms that buffer with the spinner a random times for nostalgia and have menus full of promotional material that are impossible to navigate to just find what you're looking for.

You're assuming a file containing a statistical model that exists on your hard drive has agency. It doesn't. You as the user have sole agency and what you use the statistic file for.

You could say it's more akin to if we have all been writing in a assembly and suddenly we got access to compilers and high level languages. Would we all be complaining that every conference is "about compilers"?

It's hard to avoid the topic when it literally redefines what it means to create software. If I'm using it to create some piece of software, then I turn around and say "I wrote this" am I even being truthful? But if I'm trying to avoid mentioning LLMs what other wording could I use?

I'm someone who makes extensive used of LLMs and agents for daily research, and I 100% of the time ignore the AI summary that google gives at the top of the page. If I am performing a web search, I've already decided that I'm explicitly NOT looking for an LLM summary.

I imagine something like 98% of articles also get less than 100 views. So the question is more about the articles you're reading rather than articles in general.

Much of the recent improvement in models is in being trained specifically to make use of the tools the harnesses give them.

I've switched to using traefik from caddy. For simple use cases it's a little more verbose in the configuration, but for more involved things like multiple load balancing backends, rewriting paths and headers and so on I've found it really good.

So I wonder, if a more powerful agent harness could have the agent basically write and exectute its own deteministic code, which when executed, spawns sub agents for each of the subtasks?

So far we've seen agents spawn subagents directly, but that still means leaving the final flow control to the non-deterministic orchestrator model, and so your case is a perfect example of where it would probably fail.

Both Arch and Nix solve this by making it very easy to write packages that work around the compatibility issues. When I used to use ubuntu and mint it was a lot more common to run into these types of issues.

Nobody is arguing it's guaranteed. This is why you never give an LLM access to any essential infrastructure. Make sure everything it does can be undone. Double check when guarantees are required.

Skills are often invoked imperatively by the user. In cases where they are intended to be used directly by the LLM, it would be included somewhere else in the context. E.g:

``` After implementing the feature, read the testing skill for instructions on how to test. ```

The personification seems to be at the training level. When I ask an LLM why it did something destructive, the ideal response would be a matter of fact evaluation of the mistakes that I myself have made in setting up the agent and it's environment, and how to prevent it from happening again. Instead the model itself has been trained to apologize and list exactly what it did wrong without any suggestions of how to actually prevent it in the future.

Water? You mean like out of the toilet?

A serious existential threat to the country from a targetable state actor.

It's actually common for human-written projects to go through an initial R&D phase where the first prototypes turn into spaghetti code and require a full rewrite. I haven't been through this myself with LLMs, but I wonder to what extent they could analyse the codebase, propose and then implement a better architecture based on the initial version.

only proves you're not a corporate model rather than locally running model that's been trained to allow saying that