skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
He was a self-confessed sex-addict and drug-addict over many years in that 90s-00s period.

He may well have some crimes to answer for: drugs were, and continue to be, illegal in the UK; perhaps sex-addicts are always close to the edge of criminality.

However, all those potential crimes are a long time ago. The police and his accusers have chosen to stay silent for a long time.

Some potentially self-incriminating stories have come from his own rehabilitation narrative.

It remains to be seen if the accusations can be upheld in a court of law, but the timing is suspicious.

It is only after a few years of criticizing the MSM and government overreach that someone has decided to dig up those old potential offences.

I do not like Brand's act or lifestyle. He always appeared to be (and gloried in) the persona of a silver-tongued charismatic saviour, a hippy version of a loquacious Renaissance Jesus, complete with long hair and (now salt'n'pepper) beard.

However, the timing remains interesting, and I suspect, not coincidental with his rising anti-establishment fame - not to mention a YT pot of money to attract plaintiffs and their lawyers.

There is a fading tide of cancel culture, perhaps Brand will be just become some flawed flotsam or jetsam on that ebbing swell.
You are correct, “they” have won so far unfortunately

Doesn’t mean we don’t do anything about it, just means we have to acknowledge reality
That’s a false dichotomy. You can have your subjective vision along with a legalistic code, so the abuse in practice could be tested against the vision itself. Think of it like having a constitution and laws at the same time.
You check to make sure the size requested is less than or equal to current pointer - chunk start and fail if it is bigger.

Let's face facts, the allocator, even with this additional check, is still going to be blazing fast compared to malloc() or whatever. If you're allocating so much that the handful of extra instructions is going to be a significant slowdown, maybe structure your allocations differently?
Zomg crime!

They provided money to get an artistic statement about money, which they got, and which the executor/commissioner/agent both accepted delivery of, and displayed.

Did they charge any ticket or membership fees to enter the gallery where the accepted work was displayed? Did they return that collected money to the patrons?

Crying "crime!" is a weak argument. Jaywalking is a crime.
It is just plain normal language to refer to a loss as a comparison against a current trajectory or current state. It is reasonable to assume that the reader/listener knows that the future cannot be predicted exactly, because this is generally true. This is why it isn't said explicitly.

It would be silly to correct someone who said "I just accepted a $120,000/yr job" with "you don't really know for sure, you could get fired or die". The colloquial presumption is that the rate of future income cited is dependent on a steady trajectory without confounding variables.
So in 20 years a tenth of the population will disappear?
Yes, a one-size-fits-all game engine will undoubtedly be extremely complicated. However, depending on your project, you will most likely only require a subset of its features.

One could also argue that if people base their creative decisions on the game engine, that's not always a good thing.
I got scammed in a similar way as well.

I go directly to AliExpress/Alibaba now, since a lot of the cheaper stuff I would buy on eBay was essentially resold from the same suppliers. Had nothing but positive experiences with those.
Yeah, regarding whack-a-mole, I thought that wouldn't be necessary. I mistakenly believed:

>> As far as I understand, SSH's security of what a user can do is completely based on what the shell permits the user to do.

I was mistaken in believing that sshd was designed with the user being limited to their specific shell as their sole system interface (as their only way to get the system to do things) as a core design principle. With that sort of funnel, I thought a custom shell would suffice.

> If your sshd_config had "Subsystem sftp internal-sftp" as a shipped default, then I don't think it would have gone through the user's shell.

It's curious how much you can do on a secure "shell" server without involving shells at all.

You know, what's particularly interesting is that strace shows sshd does `custom-shell.sh -c /usr/lib/ssh/sftp-server` instead of `/usr/lib/ssh/sftp-server` directly. That feels like it has no other purpose than to adhere to the principle I believed it was following, but it doesn't apply it for everything. I think it should be possible wrap stuff like `-L`, `-R`, `-D`, `-J` et al. in their own shell calls to another executable, but they don't... Wonder what's the story there.

> The reference to LD_PRELOAD was to hint at that (since if the attacker can get a binary on the system -- e.g. in a git repo or config file) they could change what functions bash is invoking

I had mentioned that the client's environment is not accepted by sshd by default, so I did address this point in my previous comment. Maybe what you're getting at here is that the shell itself may allow modifying the environment through its own logic? But you're still going to have that issue regardless of whether you use sshd or a custom integrated
ssh server.

> Writing their own 'ssh server and shell' program is a different set of tradeoffs vs trying to fully lock down programs that are intended to be general-purpose

Indeed. If the hassle to lock-down is large enough, it can be better to opt for simpler, more easily verifiable software. Tradeoffs aplenty, and one such is that you may end up adopting less mature software, by way of the chosen dependencies and your own code, however that server is implemented. That can be worth it.
Here's a link to the list directly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notorious_markets
Researchers gave 200 people $10k each to study generosity
You can have both kind of documents.
Drifting lanes, sluggish driving, aggressive driving, ignoring or delaying traffic control devices. These are all signs of impaired or distracted driving and none of it requires a camera being pointed at you.
We all know it is super-easy to cheat in science, but not much can be done about it. Short of requiring replication for every result published which isn't feasible if the study was costly to produce. And the problem isn't confined to medicine either. How many studies in hpc of the type "we setup this benchmark and our novel algorithm/implementation won!" aren't also faked or flawed?
You don't need "big pharma" for this. Researchers at universities also do these kinds of things because it helps them advance their careers.
Revenue is a measure of income. Unless speaking about specific types of revenue or specific types of income, they are synonymous.
Hmm, maybe it got better at this but my experiments a few months ago were pretty underwhelming. It did ok at emulating really distinct styles with lots of examples (Shakespeare) but surprisingly badly at more subtle styles with less examples (Tupac). In the latter case it would revert to default-speak after a while, with the odd bit of vocabulary thrown in. Tupac's entire ouevre is online, so it should be able to emulate him flawlessly. How much of my text will I have to feed it so it sounds like me?

My point is that we learn to write by reading. If someone is constantly looking at chatGPT output as exemplar that's going to change the way they write. The comment I was replying to is classic default GPT style, especially that last paragraph, even if it was written by a human.
> But maybe I'm missing something...?

I think so, because FSD != Autopilot, and if its nagging you constantly about paying attention you're not in FSD.

I'm not arguing that FSD is any good or with it, I'm just suggesting you didn't actually use Tesla "FSD".
https://archive.ph/1xlBx
Next, people will want 128-bit/128 bit rational arithmetic for money. Then fractions will work right.
I can relate. I never drank anything with caffeine and would get headaches fairly often. Headaches were never too bad or too often to need medical attention but was just normal part of life. I started drinking coffee on road trips and drives over 3 hours long and noticed that my headache coming on would go away right after. Now i drink coffee twice daily and i'll get a headache once a month at most.
That is a conscious design choice by the language designers. They feel that having to "color" your code as either async or sync is tedious leads to code duplication. After having worked a lot with Kotlin coroutines, I tend to agree.
Amazon vets raises $12.5M for Griptape to help companies build AI apps
Lens AppIQ – app-centric intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

Even the unit of replication is a factory under human control with no novel AI, and which can only replicate with significant human oversight of already existing mining, processing, and manufacturing equipment, it doesn't take insane reproduction rates to disassemble the moon in 800 years.
The government is requiring they exist for driver monitoring.
I’m not really sure that it is all that subjective — plain old serial, blocking code is objectively easier to reason about than “jumping around” code.

It’s a different question that async-await may have a few very specialist use-cases, that is not readily available in the preemptive model.
I mean, that more or less describes most police departments in the country. And they are spying on you.
Hmm -- in usual fashion I haven't read the original post here, but I'm guessing it didn't find that RCT trials that big pharma do are quite as useless as most 'medical studies' generally.

Do you think well-funded RCTs (like those that support vaccine safety) are just as weak as any old observational study?
The “seals” wear out all the damned time, which is basically the same thing.
>Please explain how, without patents, a company would choose to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to discovery a new molecule and get it approved, when another company could start selling it as well without any of the investment at all?

>Financially it makes zero sense.

Innovations in funding, protection of secrets etc do happen time to time, so even if I cannot give you satisfying answer now, it does not mean such answer does not exist. It took thousands of years to invent modern corporation and stock exchange. Cryptocurrencies are recent invention. Imagine some sort of pooled research, where all competitors/partners agree to compete only after the discovery, i.e. in production efficiency and costs, marketing etc, with some . Imagine some clever chemical engineering, where a pill is such a mixture of acting substance and harmless components that reverse engineering is too hard to complete without comparable budget. Maybe it will be something completely different that we will find obvious only after it is discovered.
Is the idea to challenge someone to prove you wrong?

Or are you suggesting that there no way for one of the aforementioned groups to recover your data remotely should they have a focused desire to recover it?
The average mobile user has only one thumb and every gesture that isn't a simple swipe causes them unimaginable agony.

Thus, the infinite scroll is the only appropriate navigation mechanism.
even if 90% of developers giving godot a shot will go back to unity, this will be a very good thing for godot
> As a frequent user of autopilot, I can assure you it is nothing close to NOT DRIVING.

And yet they're allowed to market it as "auto pilot" which is clearly an "I'm not required to be attentive" message. I agree, though, it's advanced cruise but not true driverless driving. It's not even worth it, to me. If I have not only monitor the road but "someone else's" driving, that's more work than just driving.
(..) and that people are just like "well I guess kids now have to worry about classmates making photo realistic depictions of them performing sex acts" is so horrifying.

You talk of punishment in the context of physical harm (fist vs. face), while deepfakes concern mental distress at worst. 2nd order effects like reputation damage, lost income etc can be adressed by lawyers.

Yes mental distress can be severe to some people. Or (for example) cause a group of people to harass someone.

But a) such harassment is a separate act from posting a deepfake. And

b) If deepfake postings happen often enough, it kinda takes the sting out. Few people today would be deeply disturbed if someone posts their head shopped onto a pornstar's body. That's easy enough that anyone can do it, it's been done many times, so the newsworthiness / shock value is gone.

If you know the victim in person, you'd probably be able to tell whether some video is fake or not. Or ask that person. If victim is a random stranger & deepfake disappears into the 'internet background noise', who cares.

Either way, when creating a deepfake is easy enough, it simultaneously grants a victim plausible deniability.

So ehm... "horrifying" is too strong a word imho. Try "annoying", "bad taste" or "disrespectful". Punishment (if any) should fit that.
Does using a physical process as the model by which the network learns and infers create an opportunity to implement the network physically? In this case it seems like it could be an interesting way to build things like modulators and demodulators, amplifiers, noise filters, etc.
> will rat you out for using it the first chance they get

In one fatal collision, Tesla held a press conference to throw blame at the driver and away from their autonomous systems.

They pulled telemetry and stood up at the conference and said that Tesla was not at fault because "the driver had been inattentive and the vehicle had warned him of this".

What later came out was that the vehicle had warned him to keep his hands on the wheel...

Once. Eighteen. Minutes prior to the collision.
Of course the technology is still neutral. If there's lopsided use, then it points to a people problem.
There's nothing to stop you from setting up synchronization constructs like mutexes in a cooperatively-scheduled application. Kotlin bundles them with kotlinx.coroutines [0]. If anything, having possibly-concurrent methods explicitly marked makes mutual exclusion easier to reason about, because you know exactly which functions may have concurrency problems.

Are you saying that there's a mechanism in Loom that somehow forces you to mark mutual exclusion which is absent from cooperatively-scheduled languages?

[0] https://kotlinlang.org/api/kotlinx.coroutines/kotlinx-corout...
Good excuse for me to give up Twitter.
A false equivalency. Websites want to entice you to visit, stores do not want to entice you to steal gift cards.

As for whether you can make blocking ads an ethical imperative, I'd agree that without ads, there likely wouldn't be an incentive to provide helpful, free services. If anything, it's theft of the value that other ad-consenting visitors are providing.
Dead internet theory or us :)
The Polyglot sandbox is licensed under GFTC: https://www.oracle.com/downloads/licenses/graal-free-license...

ISOLATED and UNTRUSTED require GFTC

CONSTRAINED is also available under open-source licenses.

Only for JavaScript right now. We are working hard on supporting all the other languages!

Developer here. So, if you have more questions, let me know!
A lot of us got there a few years ago. So the perverse incentive is that many of the people who would shun them have already, so why not keep misbehaving?
2^63 / 100 Trillion = 9.2E6 so even in this case you have few decimal positions left.
Wait until you realize their footprints on Wallstreet, many of which openly admit their former employment.. Once a company man always a company man.. or something.
I used to hate ads, for the intrusion they made. Then I started to run my own ventures and realised advertising is essential: even finding friends and partners requires advertising of a sort.

But on the web, advertising doesn’t stop at attention theft. Most web ads are agents of surveillance networks, and also are software running on your hardware. Neither we should tolerate.
Interestingly and semi-related: in Japan, the electrical grid is divided into two frequency standards: 50 Hz in the eastern part of the country (including Tokyo), and 60 Hz in the western part (including Osaka). Which was due to influence by German tech in the east and American tech in the west. Electrical appliances have to be labeled to indicate their compatible frequency to warn customers
No, the lesson is to work with the safety mechanisms to accomplish both fast and safe result. If I'm writing code in language A, I don't choose to throw out one of the foundational aspects of that language on the grounds that it's merely inconvenient.
An example can summarize hundreds of words with less explanation cruft and wording confusion.

Of all the math classes I've taken, the best teachers are the ones that just walk through examples. Not the ones explaining in abstract how to solve problems generally.
And all the money went to China - my panels, battery and inverter are all imported and that is money that did not enter the local economy except for the labor and installation costs.
I was indeed thinking of Cyberpunk but also games like Redfall, Wild Hearts, Outriders, etc. These games shipped inexcusably buggy and in the case of Wild Hearts, EA recently announced that they won't put in any more effort into patching performance issues which still persist.

I realize that all of these games probably had large QA teams work on them for a long time, but that's why I said "seems" - maybe the caught the bugs but they certainly didn't slip the launch or hire more people to fix them.
My comment was more about the interest groups that wield disproportionate decision making power at local levels. But have at it if you must.
It's a publicly-traded private company, not a government-owned public company.
“You can't defend. You can't protect. The only thing you can do is detect and respond.” -- Bruce Schneier
I suspect that's just an initial breakdown. They're estimating 4.2 to 8.4 million a day out of the 42 million they normally make, but that's just on the revenue side.

Equipment, man hours, botched projects, and lawsuits are going to push that number waaay higher, and even then I feel like it's got to be pretty low given the vast amount of money that passes through every day. On a 15% hold 42 million would work out to 280 billion of flow through the slots max (and obviously that's estimating high and assuming all revenue is from slots).

So 8 million a day is $53 billion in coin in that's not occurring? Maybe that's correct.

Doing quick napkin math so pardon any errors.
>I thought the whole point of the exercises was to show that C has lots of undefined behavior, so you should only rely on the behavior of the specific system you’re coding for.

In my opinion, the whole point of the exercise was to show that as an engineer, you should have an engineering mindset. And that means collecting requirements, selecting parts, reading a lot of specifications, and participate in writing them.

C is an abstraction. If you program in C, you use that abstraction (so you use the standardized C abstract machine). Why would you program in C and NOT use that abstraction? If you want the latter, just use assembly. Especially in this application.

Otherwise, yes, you hold yourself to the C standard, and you use compilers that are certified to actually implement that standard.

Of course, there needs to be a lot (>50% of the total time) of testing, too. But not to figure out what the compiler does :P

> If the C standard doesn’t specify what happens when a signed integer overflows, that doesn’t mean you can just ignore it.

It means you have to write your programs in a way that signed overflow cannot happen.

> You could crash the system, report an error, or find out what the targeted system is specified to do in the case of a signed integer overflow.

Just make it fail (looong) before the signed integer overflow would happen (with proof).

>what the targeted system is specified to do in the case of a signed integer overflow

What does this mean? What is the "system" in this case?

If the "system" is the hardware, then no. In standardized C, this overflow never makes it down to the hardware. If it's the hardware and the compiler, then sure, but you aren't programming standard C then. I guess you could do that (why would you, though... compliance is gonna reject it).

> Is there something else I’m missing here, or do the nuclear systems typically have several processors that may have varying behavior for this type of stuff?

In practice, you have certified compilers that are certified to actually implement the c standard correctly.

>Is there something else I’m missing here, or do the nuclear systems typically have several processors that may have varying behavior for this type of stuff?

You usually want to be independent of the processor (and/or vendor) used, in order to be able to easily switch it out in case they get uppity/lazy. That's one of the main uses of C.
> Yeah code is not a bad thing

I think code is a great thing, just that the "everything looks like a nail" argument goes both ways
Civilian aircraft, even 2 seaters, have had ELTs for decades. They are being replaced with better systems, but they were designed to do just that: broadcast a signal on a specific frequency after a crash.

Doubtful you want to broadcast the position of the latest generation stealth fighter, however.
I ask a fair number of code questions where bugs and stuff will be caught either immediately or shortly after first use. If 5% of those are wrong, totally fine with me.

I also sometimes ask questions like "what is the tallest mountain in the US" or "what is the hottest desert on Earth" or similar. If I really need to know that the answer is correct, at a minimum it gives me a name to search for to verify height in feet compared to others, etc.
Waymo / Cruise is limited to San Francisco, and isn't generally available right now. FSD is available today and can access freeways for long distance driving. SF to LA or NYC to Boston, say. FSD > Autopilot. Even if you have to pay attention, it still makes the drive easier - at the end of the drive you're less exhausted.
Hobbes: The Leviathan in Modern English – P1C4 – Of Speech
Given that Signal's main innovation (compared to traditional end to end encryption) was to safeguard its users against future compromises via the ratchet protocol, this actually seems like a logical move for them to make.
The key words here are: "around", which is to say same order of magnitude for performance, and "in some cases" which is to say for certain applications. I've already posted evidence for this claim specifically in sibling posts.

Also, why do you compare JS written by amateurs with Go/Java experts? There are JS experts too.