jdiff

How could they possibly? Neurons aren't floating point values that can be so easily perceived and changed. They don't strictly flow in consistent directions.

It's a recent change they made (could still be rolling out) for signed-out users.

The customer support reps find the AI assistance hamfisted and laughable. AI call transcriptions get big and small details wrong, often leaving out critical details in favor of generic and high level "customer and agent discussed an ongoing issue with their home appliance." AI "let me direct your call" bots are constantly sending people to essentially random departments. AI bots trying to directly be the customer service serve only to piss people off before they get to a human, and I've run into a few businesses that are only staffed by bots.

> The affected devices run specific versions of a large vendor’s firewall software.

And the vendor's firewall software runs an unpatched version.

Just outrage/security fatigue I believe.

Firefox on my machines looks fine.

From the article,

> While observing 422 children ages 3 to 5, a 2022 study led by Radesky found that mobile device use for calming — in other words, a digital pacifier — was associated with “decreased executive functioning and increased emotional reactivity.” (Executive function refers to memory and problem-solving skills needed for everyday life. Emotional reactivity refers to poor impulse control in response to stress, pain, and other negative feelings.)

ADHD is a type of executive function disorder.

They are already attempting to flee the kitchen as quickly as they can, unfortunately the rest of the planet that's still in the kitchen isn't keen on letting them escape the grease fire they started.

Core dev says so. So does a release manager.

https://phpc.social/@Girgias/117476510850918355

https://old.reddit.com/r/PHP/comments/1xb2utu/comment/phyu5m...

Yeah that definition doesn't support your claim, and again, descriptive. Mute if you want, history will prove me right regardless.

Notably you speak falsehoods.

You wanna go another lap around the circle or?

XML can handle implicitly closed tags, they call them "empty" in the spec here:

https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-starttags

Don't know what's so sure about it, either is perfectly valid.

That's so patently unacceptable that I'm surprised you're taking that tack. You're in a lithium car fire, climbing into the front seat may not even be possible, and figuring out that your back door doesn't have an obvious release is time lost that all will have a cost in blood. There being two paths out of the maze doesn't make it not a maze.

It seems fair to judge this by the weakest link.

Language evolves, and dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and notably do not back you up in either case.

That's a fine interpretation but it's not in complete alignment with common usage and understanding of these terms. You can define terms however you like to draw whatever conclusion you like. But they won't last long outside of a vacuum.

We have been able to predict properties of elements that had not been isolated yet. Your definition is too narrow.

Completely agree that error tolerance depends on what it is that we're doing. Some things demand no errors at all, some things have a cost to attempt, some things you can't pre-evaluate for correctness if you don't already have the prerequisite knowledge and you only get one chance. Not everything is software where we can conjure 50 more end-to-end tests to ward off demons. When it's not a harmless throwaway weekend project, 7% is already a huge error rate before you ever think of feeding it back into itself.

If failure is essentially guaranteed somewhere in that chain, success becomes impossible. You don't need to lose lives to have simply have a fruitless endeavor. And when we're talking about law, we're talking about more than a fruitless endeavor. Law also isn't software that can have tests crafted and fed back into the loop.

The difference is the source of the sample. This is a flagship product by a frontier lab. It should be reflective of the best that is possible. It should be biased in the most favorable possible way. It was designed by people without the normal limitations and quotas of outsiders in building it, as well as in learning experiences in driving it. This is not a random cherry-pick of bad code.

How are you running that math and what are you consider to be "expected failure"? If even 30% of your runs go into the garbage, that sounds horrifically unreliable, and both 7 and 10% failure rates hit those margins in less than 5 iterations.

Not to mention that the deeper your iterations, the more money burned on garbage before you realize that data in turned to garbage out turned to garbage in somewhere in the chain.

I think the point being made is that when you're feeding outputs into inputs, both 93% and 90% rapidly collapse to 0% without some way to recover.

My last job I was notified via text message on a Saturday that I didn't need to come back into the office Monday. The USA has basically zero protections for employees.

Not power longevity, longevity of the display itself. You drive things harder, they tend to die faster.

There may prove to be reasons (longevity?) that they don't.

The hardware owner can modify it all they want, disable SIP. For a large swath of average and non-average users that will not be modifying the closed-source OS they're running, it is obviously good.

Traditional UNIX is does not mean having an open source core you're intended to tinker with. Traditional UNIX was entirely proprietary, connected with well-defined text-based interfaces. This is entirely orthogonal to user control and manipulation of the OS.

The fine citizens of the Internet the forger posts on may be.

This is true, it'd be a trademark issue if anything, not a copyright one. From this page:

> it may be reproduced, as long as the reproduction cannot be mistaken for an authentic signature.

I suppose it could be saturated if we assume we've hit the limit on LLM capabilities.