FreakLegion
class Some[T]:
value: T
type Option[T] = Some[T] | None
def get_owner(id: DocumentId) -> Option[Option[UserId]]: ...
match get_owner(document_id):
case None:
...
case Some(None):
...
case Some(Some(x)):
...There are, they just didn't have a working exploit. Anyone with a honeypot can tell you attempts were widespread going back to early last week, but it wasn't until Saturday that we started to see successes.
Use whatever tools you want, but don't kid yourself. There's a reason Google adopted Pyrefly.
It'll happen sooner or later, but all signs are that this was first and foremost a process nightmare. It wasn't another Log4Shell.
Ty's original pitch was that it would have strong inference and be useful for gradually typing existing, untyped codebases, but AI made that moot. Adding types to existing code is now trivial.
One article survived the move, so you can compare:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220426154343/https://www.pzura...
https://maevyn.codes/four-eras-of-javascript-frameworks
Edit: Loading any page of the old blog on archive.org always errors out initially. Click back to the blog list and then on the article again.
The other side of the tradeoff is bumped ribbon retrieval. Blocked Bloom filters are about 50% bigger than BuRR.
I don't mean to defend the paper in general, though. It has plenty of problems.
Optimizing column layout has been enough for me to leave OLAP workloads in Postgres a few times when I otherwise would've had to spin up something dedicated for them.
> Her argument claimed that while we perceived legible text coming from ChatGPT, we were actually being fooled by our innate pattern-matching instincts
This is an accurate summary, I think, and the point the authors are making sits somewhere in the coordinate space of a simplified reframing of the Chinese Room, Grice's account of intention in meaning, Wittgenstein's "Say 'It's cold here' and mean 'It's warm here'" challenge, and a whole bunch of the hermeneutic tradition.
Very roughly, you might say that an LLM doesn't mean anything when it emits text, but that the text still has meaning (which I think is all tptacek wants from "meaningful outputs", but you could take that further as culturally or scientifically 'meaningful', i.e. 'significant').
Philosophically, there are people who hold the position that something has to have been meant to have meaning, or that something has to have meaning in the first place to be meant, and so on. There were always interesting edge cases to these accounts (actors delivering lines, or the Dada/Burroughs cut-up technique), but LLMs are challenging in a way that e.g. Racter wasn't.
"Stochastic parrot" is a fitting term for this because the parrot's words have meaning, but the parrot itself doesn't mean anything by them. Not literally, anyway. And that's it. That's the whole analogy.
Have some people watered the term down to "LLM dumb"? Yes. Is that what Gebru meant in the first place? Not in my reading. Is it incorrect to use the term today? Depends, uh, on what you mean by it.
DraftKings was founded in Boston and funded by Boston and other East Coast VCs.
Polymarket was founded in New York with funding from all over the world.
Crypto wasn't created in any particular place, and crypto companies are probably the least geographically concentrated kind of tech company there is.
Venture capital and modern business planning weren't invented in Silicon Valley, either.
Statistical models have been around for hundreds of years.
This is "not even wrong" territory.
> what is even the purpose of a board in a multi-class share structure with the founder holding above 50% voting shares.
This is a question about governance in general. The details of what happened at Automattic are irrelevant.
What's not normal is any kind of special investor right to sack the CEO unilaterally.
Founders are almost always outnumbered on the board by Series B, but like I speculated in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638676, Automattic is unusual here, and Mullenweg may control it. There's still a decent chance that True Ventures left in protest rather than being booted, though, and has the right to a seat[1]. It's just, what's the point if Mullenweg has them beat 4-1?
1. Edit: The article confirms that Toni Schneider resigned, but not whether True Ventures (his firm) has the right to a seat.
>> You have to be quite unaware of your bubble if you think knowing about a niche Harry Potter fanfic is "standard" for people on the Internet.
> "niche"? It's literally one of the most read pieces of fanfiction of all time.
You jumped into a conversation about the ubiquity of something for people on the Internet. Either your claim is about that, in which case it's wrong, or it's not about that, in which case it's irrelevant.
This is very unlikely. True Ventures almost certainly controls at least one seat. (Until Phil Black left last year they actually held two seats, but that doesn't mean they had the right to. Either way, at the moment it's just Toni Schneider.)
In this case? Possibly! Ann Dunwoody and Sue Decker look like independents, and he might be able to unilaterally replace either or both of them.
So close to spotting the mistake you made in your response to skippyfish, yet so far!
you: > The cost of reading this story is not high
Do you see where you went wrong?