ameliaquining

Doesn't work for me in Chrome either; it transforms the URL from the top comment into https://sp.m. I believe this is the result of browser-level defenses against IDN homograph attacks, some of which postdate this article.

Explanation of why this hypothesis is unlikely to be correct: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba...

No, Nordhaus was never the problem and policymakers have not been anywhere near as aggressive about climate change as he thought they should be. If everyone had listened to him, we'd be in much better shape. The climate movement's antipathy towards him is a narcissism-of-small-differences thing. The actual problem is that voters only want to address climate change if it can be done without inconveniencing them in any way, which it can't.

For further argument, see: https://www.slowboring.com/p/economists-arent-the-problem-on...

This took place in 2005, nearly a decade before Medicaid expansion went into effect.

And so it comes full circle.

Why would the government use local LLMs? Compute is a central example of the kind of thing that makes sense to outsource.

...no? Whatever value they got from inference they already did is still there? Of course the government still needs to worry about vendor lock-in, but they'd have to do that no matter what, and also general-purpose LLMs are relatively replaceable for most use cases.

That's an argument against any descriptive name at all.

I don't understand this question, sorry.

But some organization has to check all that stuff, confirm that it's accurate, and then issue the certificate, right? So what's lost from having that organization just have a website that maps that information to domain names?

Can you give a concrete example of the kind of claim you think QWACs would be useful for verifying, that can't be addressed just as well with existing protocols?

Do you have any particular reason to think that the Stripe problem is solvable?

ccTLD name constraints are an old idea, back in the news again lately for obvious reasons, and the same arguments against them still apply: https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.dev.security.policy/c/pF...

Are there other use cases besides those that you think the Web PKI should support?

Why do agents need any of this cryptographic infrastructure? Can't they just check on the certifying authority's website whether an entity is legitimate?

I think most American tech people are against most of those things? Why would they not have careers without them?

I've usually heard it called "ASP.NET MVC" except when the former part was clear from context.

The browser vendors, I think, were at least making a good-faith attempt to address a real security problem; it's not like they made any money from EV certificates. Even if it was inevitably going to be marketed somewhat predatorily, and ultimately didn't work out.

Do you have any reason to believe that your interlocutor is in favor of the U.S. government enforcing regulations beyond its borders?

Link to an explanation of the C++26 change? I can't find it.

Well, no one's saying they shouldn't also do other things about the problem.

I don't think that's a problem with the Oracle of Bacon data; I think there actually are more newer movies than older ones, because Hollywood has figured out ways to ramp up its production over time.

A sufficiently smart model could get somewhere that way. But again, I think it's less likely that our current ones are already there than that they can defeat the protections outlined in the post. So sandboxing would help.

Well, it seems better than not doing that?

You can keep airgapped software up to date, but you have to sneakernet all the updates to each machine. This isn't impossible if you operate your own data centers, but it's inconvenient, and also it sounds like they're largely using third-party clouds where you can't really do that.

I do think airgapping would be good, since it seems more likely to me that current or near-future frontier models can break out of VMs and hide from traffic monitoring, than that they can establish a conspiracy when they can communicate only in one direction and only via the channel of the experiment output.

I don't understand this comment, are you saying they should allow it to appear in training data?

Prior art here is the much older Oracle of Bacon project (which I'm hoping the author didn't know about). It uses the full IMDb data set (not just the top 10,000 films) and gets different results, with Eric Roberts in first place and Samuel L. Jackson in fifth: https://oracleofbacon.org/center_list.php

Well, it does look really bad at first glance, even if there's apparently an explanation.

I think it is reasonable, if apparently incorrect, for people to assume that your account is a throwaway account, given its name. I'm surprised that you're surprised by this.

Log4Shell wasn't a supply chain attack, though; it was a genuine bug in a widely used library that had become a de facto standard, even in an ecosystem that tends towards relatively smaller and shallower dependency trees. So that comparison doesn't seem apt.

He is in fact going to pay the taxes himself, in the sense that they will come out of his net worth, not Meta's market cap. The significance of this deal is that it allows him to retain voting control of Meta after doing so, which might not otherwise have been possible. The current HN submission title is wildly misleading and I'm asking the moderators to change it (it's not from the original source).