nofriend
nofriend on Hacker News
> nobody in decades thought to make this information accessible to the programmer!
Obviously this is untrue. Under GNU we have malloc_usable_size(3). What's true is that it never became standardized, but standards for just about anything in C are very bare, so it's not too surprising.
Yes, they would be sued out of existence otherwise. It also says on the site "lyrics licensed by musixmatch", so there you go.
>Nearly a year of "full time" work at 40hrs/week went into this
You uh, missed a decimal point there. A year at 40 hours/week would be 2000 hours, not 200. The quote "unless the sculpture was created slowly at odd moments over several months" seems accurate in light of that, but rather odd: why wouldn't it be created slowly at odd moments over several months, or even years? Was prehistoric man lacking in free time? The article eventually continues: "why would a community living on the edge of subsistence, whose primary concerns were finding food, keeping that fire going, protecting children from predators, allow someone to spend so much time away from those tasks?" Keeping a fire going or protecting from predators are tasks with rather a lot of down time. I can easily imagine a person doing either of those while also whittling on a piece of bone. It's also just ridiculous to assume that subsistence living meant being constantly on the verge of starvation. Sometimes times were bad, and many people died. Then later, times were good, food could be obtained easily, and plenty of time would be left over for leisure tasks.
Cloning games is not copyright infringement. Think what that would mean for a popular infiniminer clone
This is DMCA. DMCA does not absolve hosts if they "receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity". So if google hosts an app and makes money off of that app, they can't claim safe harbor if that app is infringing. Hence, under the DMCA, they need to take down the app as soon as they have even a suggestion that it might infringe somebody's copyright, and not put it back up until they are certain it doesn't.
A number is not in the first place its digit sequence. A number like pi is in the first place the ratio of a circle's diameter and its circumference, and only incidentally a certain (infinite) decimal expansion. A name is in the first place something you say, hence the thing you say has to be (at least theoretically) sayable.
names have to be finite in length. i think that's pretty obvious
The proof is simple: there are countably many names, but uncountably many real numbers. Hence, some real numbers must be unnameable.
> This is doing a lot of work though isn't it ?
I don't think it is. I think you could detect sandbox escapes reliably more often than you could actually prevent sandbox escapes (which is, itself, very high). If you had an external watchdog that looked for unusual processes running on your machine, that looked for unusual connections being made, you could detect even very sophisticated attacks.
> If you think about this in an evolutionary context, What you're doing is putting even stronger pressures on the AI to evolve in a manner you don't want it to
No, because we are using failed sandbox escapes as negative training examples. So >99.99% of the time when the AI attempts to escape the sandbox, that will produce another training example that will cause it to try and escape the sandbox less. The remaining <0.01% of the time it will be pushed to try and escape the sandbox. The 99.99% will have a much stronger influence than the 0.01%.
It seems like the fix should be really really simple, but maybe I'm missing something: instead of giving the AI a sandboxed environment and telling it "go wild", give it an (apparently) unrestricted environment, and tell it "don't access the internet", "don't communicate with other AIs", "don't try to get root access", etc. Then, if the AI tries to do any of those things, the sandbox detects it, marks the run as a failure, and adds it as a negative example to the training data. Instead of routing around the restriction, the AI would very quickly learn to follow the prompt instruction with respect to restrictions, even if there is no obvious enforcement of the restriction. It would develop, in other words, a conscience and a sense of morality.
Right, linux should instead go by the normal extension for an elf, which is no extension... instead this problem is solved by prompting the user if they want to execute the program.
Where's the other 300k going? If you aren't spending it, what does it matter if it all gets taxed to nothing? And if you end up spending it, then boom there's your consumption that needs to be taxed.
Some file formats, eg png, require a particular file header in order to be considered valid. This is true regardless of your operating system, be it windows or linux. If that is hidden information, then it is hidden regardless of which operating system you're on. On windows, if I have a png named .doc, then there is absolutely no way to determine that it is a valid png and could be opened with my image viewer with standard tools. On linux it will recommend you open the file with an image viewer regardless of the file extension. That seems to me like significantly less hidden information.
Am I missing something? Hiding things from users is a property of the windows approach. Did you reply to the wrong person?
The odd thing is the non conditional "before it lands" rather than "if it lands".
Very odd proposal. The new element syntax is perhaps the boldest choice. I wonder why they thought that was necessary. The idea of using this to defer rendering elements is also odd. So this would use a http long polling style? It really goes against several decades of progress in the web platform, where by now it's long established that you do this sort of thing with xhr. I'm amazed that they even put this in chrome, let along are saying things like "let sites use this new functionality right away even before this lands in other browsers" as if it's a sure thing.
Sometimes humans talk not purely to accomplish things but rather for human contact and comradery.
Have they? The most popular post from this domain is 5 days old and has ~500 points. Hardly a crowd favourite. The submitter seems to be the author, but doesn't have any more popular posts. A search for "user8" on algolia turns up these posts, and nothing else that was at all popular.
> What we call “consciousness” is merely a product of evolution, and also a tool shaped by evolution.
that's the easy problem
> I think this hard problem has a simple answer that people just don’t like: consciousness is a powerful (and fundamental to our "calculator brain") illusion.
who is eluded? people absolutely love this answer and give it constantly, not realizing that it's begging the question. in order for their to be an illusion, there needs to be someone to perceive the illusion.
The table of contents opens links in a new tab. If they didn't, they would require a full page reload, because they don't use fragments. This is seemingly how substack is designed.
>If a url parameter would've been a vulnerability because something lower down the stack misinterprets it
By assumption, you are using this url parameter. So you have a bug where you've forgotten to allow this parameter, which will quickly be discovered in your logs and fixed. Then the vulnerability, which you are thus far unaware of, will quickly be exposed. Those url parameters you are not using cannot hurt you.
>It’s possible that the teams you work with expect fuzzy behaviour from the website but that’s a choice, not a practice.
This is how the vast majority of websites work. The practical reason is obvious: when we model the behaviour our code depends on, we want to create the simplest possible model that allows our code to work as expected. Placing requirements on it that our code doesn't actually depend on is useless, unneeded, complexity.
> As a web developer, you’re the like the guy standing with a clipboard outside a fancy club checking if people requesting entry are allowed or not. Basically, level 1 security.
there is no security benefit to filtering out unneeded url parameters.
Standards are just commonly accepted behaviour that somebody chose to write down somewhere. There are a great number of commonly accepted behaviours that nobody's ever bothered to encode into a formal standard, but where failure to follow the accepted practice will result in widespread breakage. There are also a great many "standards" that you would be a fool to follow to the letter. In the OP case, the only thing that will break is people trying to visit their site, who will presumably simply press the back button on their browser and go about their day. They can decide for themselves if that is an acceptable casualty. But it isn't definitionally acceptable because no standard says it isn't (nor would is suddenly become unacceptable because a standard said it was...)
> It should be immediately obvious that in that scheme 404 is indeed the correct answer to unknown query parameters
That's not obvious at all. If I receive json data that contains a property I'm not aware of, i don't reject the entire document for that reason. In the case of query strings, extra query parameters might be used by other parts of the stack besides yours, so rejecting the entire document because someone somewhere else is trying to pass information to itself is the wrong approach.
The reason is that clients, even under xhtml, expect to be able to build webpages via templating. You need to reject that assumption and demand that servers build pages from an ast so that the backend guarantees that the page parses. It isn't hard to do, it's just the xhtml never got far enough to try it.
the only reason anyone would be interested in this result is because of the implication that it generalizes to other sites.
There are rss aggregators that poll every feed occasionally, then combine them into a single feed for each person to consume.
Nostr works on a similar basis but you push to the aggregator instead of them pulling.
> We understood (and knew for a long time) that the large AI labs are not monetarily profiting from subscription users that make heavy use of their subscription.
"profit" is a weird concept in the software business. it might be true that there is an opportunity cost to these users, either because they displace other potential users by using up capacity, or because they would be willing to pay more if forced. but I don't believe that anyone is losing money on inference costs on any of their plans.
> At some point they have to price their product fairly
they are competing in a market. if most of their costs were inference then this would be a good thing, because everyone would have roughly the same prices, so as long as they had the best model they would win. in fact model development costs eclipse the cost of inference, and is something that non frontier labs get for much cheaper by distilling from the frontier companies.
> They will have to compete on merit alone, and that is much less profitable.
that's not really true. google won search on merit alone, and were massively successful as a result. the trick is that everyone from the poorest shmuck to the richest businessman uses google, so they win through scale. in ai, google and openai are making a bet that they can do the same thing. there's only really room for one winner at this game, even two is stretching it, so anthropic has to win by being the smartest model that only high end businesses use. that's a very risky bet.