wavemode

That quote is from a play, and was written by a character who is a revolutionary and an anarchist.

In a meta-sense, I don't think G.B. Shaw intended this quote to be taken as an absolute truth by the audience.

And, even taking the quote itself at face value (pretending the fictional character who wrote it was a real person), I think it's referring mostly to political progress. Indeed, most times that political institutions have been upended, it was by people who were not happy with the status quo. But I think that's a different sort of unhappiness from the unhappiness of not being satisfied with your life.

£11,000 is a lot of money, but in the context of instruments is pretty reasonable.

One pass, all the way down to bytecode

hands off to two of its own IRs before writing WASM-GC by hand

So it's not "one pass" lol. Do you know what a pass is?

Not that it matters - this AI is claiming "one pass" as though that's a good thing, but it's usually not. One-pass compilers can't typecheck forward references.

I disagree. The article very clearly makes it sound like there is some reason RudderStack ought to be listed by name in the privacy policy of the Stardust app. When in reality, it would make no more sense to list them by name, than it would make sense to list AWS or CloudFlare or any other technical infrastructure through which customer data passes.

Mozilla uncovered numerous privacy problems across various apps, but Stardust was the only one found sharing detailed reproductive health data with another company.

The report found that Stardust sends users' health information to a data management company called RudderStack, which isn't named in its privacy policy. That data includes pregnancy status, birth control, moods, alcohol consumption and specific symptoms like tender breasts and stomach cramps.

Companies often share data with outside services to process information and analyse user behaviour. There's nothing unlawful going on, and there's no reason to think RudderStack (or any company mentioned in this story) is doing something nefarious.

However, experts say it's inherently risky when your data spreads to more places. It creates another opportunity for security breaches or legal requests for information. Besides, you may just be uncomfortable with another company seeing your health data.

A Stardust spokesperson says the company only uses RudderStack as a "technical pipeline" to route data into its own analytics systems, and the app doesn't share anything that could allow RudderStack to identify your name or contact information. "Additionally, RudderStack is contractually prohibited from selling or using it for its own purposes," and RudderStack doesn't store the data long-term, the spokesperson says.

"People deserve better," says Shoshana Wodinsky, a privacy research analyst who conducted Mozilla's tests. At the very least, she says, you should know what's happening.

Yep. This is a common problem for pocket devices with USB-C ports. Those suckers collect dust and grime if you don't cover them up.

I usually use the pointy end of a plastic flosser.

There's definitely one code change that's needed - you need to override the Allocator being used by standard library containers (or, live without standard library containers) and by any third-party dependencies you have. That feature is not even stable, let alone idiomatic.

This only works for very specific use cases, like a fixed server size where you know exactly how much memory you want to allocate to a process.

So, like, the JVM with its "initial heap size" setting? After reserving that space from the OS on startup, pieces of the space are then handed out by the JVM's internal allocator, where and when needed.

If initial heap size and max heap size are the same, that initial one is the only malloc() call that ever happens. Not as common for desktop software, but a common best practice when deploying JVM applications to servers.

(I think we're perhaps tripping over two different meanings of "allocate" - you can "allocate" in the sense of calling malloc(), and you can "allocate" a piece of that reserved memory to a particular scope/function/object without actually calling malloc.)

Allocating memory as needed isn’t a Rust-specific idiom.

I never said that.

I would say the exact opposite, actually - Zig is a language specifically suited for TigerBeetle's all-at-once approach to memory management, and the approach more commonly used in Rust (allocate wherever and whenever) is non-idiomatic in Zig.

only works for very specific use cases.

It's not clear to me what you mean by this.

how the hell do I get past level 6 of the Casper game?

Well, you can "source" a script, so its effects persist in your current shell session. That's a feature of the script and your shell sharing the same language.

Do you have a link to this chat?

Apple isn't bringing this lawsuit for the cash. For publicity reasons this will go to trial.

Elaborate?

I actually think self-driving is one of the easier paths of development. The main thing holding it back right now is regulation and liability.

But, if you could wave a wand and eliminate all legal and liability hurdles to self-driving, automobile deaths would plummet. They're way safer than the average human driver. The technology is definitely capable, our society just isn't ready for it.

I mean, you've linked to a function performing md5 hashing. That's pretty much exactly what I would expect such code to look like.

Case in point: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/common/...

I don't think you're supposed to be eating the toothpaste.

You make it sound as though this is a proposal for legislation in the US...

What is it about the giant battles that was not fun?

As someone who is not an AI researcher, the paper itself is way over my head.

More interesting was the independent commentary paper they linked near the bottom: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/files/4zrzovbb/website/cc4be24...

Neel Nanda (of Google Deepmind - his part begins on page 33) discusses his opinions on the paper, and the small-scale replication he performed on an open-weight model.

Lots of things were disallowed in 0.19, but probably the most disruptive were that custom native modules were disallowed (which basically means that, only certain official packages would now be allowed to directly call native JavaScript), and the package manager was locked down (which means that you can only install packages from the official elm repository, not GitHub or anywhere else).

You can still indirectly call native JavaScript, in a message-passing kind of way (via Ports or custom elements) but these changes were still really disruptive to many codebases.

ON DELETE CASCADE is horrendously unsafe unless you have full understanding of the entire data model - which is unlikely for the average employee within a large organization with a gigantic database. (And it's also rare to be permanently deleting data when working in such a context, so the convenience doesn't matter that much.)

The key is to find something that you enjoy sucking at. I recently picked up quad rollerskating and the process of getting steadier and smoother at it (while just enjoying the vibes, music and community at my local rink) has become an obsession. It's my new third-favorite hobby (after programming and competitive cornhole).

After reading through several pages of their comments, I'm roughly 100% certain that the user you're referring to is not a bot and is not karma farming. They just post a lot.

The broad strokes of what Wikipedia considers notable has not changed significantly in the last 20 years.

What has mostly changed is that there are more editors now, and thus more eyes and also more serious discussion (rigor?) about such things.

You've almost got it, except:

Wikipedia has a bunch of languages that were used by like one person, because there is published material on them

No. It's more like, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines AT ALL, but when you write an article on Wikipedia and enough time passes without anyone noticing that the article is poorly sourced, then eventually the tendency of Wikipedia community is to just keep it.

This is what has led to the what-about-ism regarding Odin's deletion - there are lots of other programming languages that also don't meet the notability guidelines, yet, to this day, still have Wikipedia articles.

Could someone come along and propose deletion for such articles? Yes, of course. You yourself could go do that right now, if you want. But nobody's getting paid for such work, so someone has to want to. The tendency of Wikipedia editors is that, when an article is many years old, they would rather flag it for improvement rather than simply throw away years of fellow editors' work. Whereas an article that's brand new is likely to not have much work put into it, and also more likely to be self-promotion and/or spam.

This is very frustrating for people who create Wikipedia articles and have them deleted. "You mean, whether or not my non-notable article gets deleted or not is just the luck of whether someone comes along and notices that it's not notable?" Yep. Like I said, nobody's getting paid for deletion work.

Huh? The word "better" is the comparative form of the adjective "good". Or did you misunderstand the comment you're replying to?

"pump the price of a token" seems like the complex part that you're hand-waving. Either this token has a bunch of other traders (in which case, it's not trivial to simply "pump" its fair-market price by your own effort), or your alt wallets are themselves most of the liquidity (in which case, you're really just transacting with yourself, which is trivial to trace)

people also expect those files to still be accessible i.e. if the agent invokes "make", which makes it impossible to solve perfectly

You could always use setuid to allow the agent to run designated commands whose operation depends on the files, without the agent itself being able to access the files.

No, not all vulnerabilities are bugs. "Bug" implies a system working in a way its creators did not intend, but a system can be working exactly as intended yet have a vulnerability.

For example, if you allow weak passwords, then you have a trivial vulnerability to people guessing other people's passwords. But nothing about the login system is working differently from how anyone intended. It's just that the intentions themselves were naïve.

https://archive.ph/xHcW4