tpoacher

not to mention "conscious"

If anything, this sounds like a toxic person trying to project or provoke.

It reads like a character assassination piece superficially presented as nuanced philosophy, and we don't even have the actual exchange, only this person's account of it, which we are meant to trust in terms of both wording and demonstrated intent.

"If you have nothing kind to say" as the quote goes ...

Give it time. The bubble will blow and it'll be back.

I like how both these projects seem to imply that in the event of an EOW scenario linux users can just f##k right off, thank you very much. xD

Honest question. Since when do we take company "pinky promises" seriously?

Like, does anyone believe Anthropic seriously doesn't train on your data if you ask them politely about it?

Hm, that's a shame.

I suppose you could always convert that message to imply a personal standard rather than company policy, and then defend any criticism coming your way as acting in good faith on behalf of the company and its mission to prevent low quality / potentially dangerous PRs.

But yeah ... not as strong an argument if you're stuck with that.

Having said that, if the higher ups are "all in on AI", you may have luck reversing that logic and having an AI filter all PRs on the basis of "quality", where you get to define what counts as quality, as above. You could even have an automated reply to say this PR failed to meet our AI filters, please revise accordingly (and possibly dump either the guidelines or AI-generated feedback on how to correct the PR before it can be seen by a human).

This way you get to tell your higher-ups that you're using an advanced AI pipeline, while simultaneously filtering out (or at least deslopping as much as possible) most bad-quality, generic AI PRs. win-win.

"Closing as too broad / not focused enough in language and scope / not adhering to our PR submission guidelines (see [link])"

(where the top guideline on [link] clearly states: "we do not accept submissions that are either outright AI-generated or conceptually similar in terms of style, verbosity, generality, scope-creep or signal-to-noise ratio")

Facetious I was.

Bigcorps re-using known names.

A worrying trend.

Good to see Anthropic back alternative OSes.

Or making up stuff

Along with its Hirds!

with the exception that in software there typically isn't an expectation that the client does their own debugging before accepting the software, and any bugs that manifest in said software after purchase treated as the client's fault for not spotting them.

so yeah, not the best analogy.

based on my limited memory and understanding of the incident, when MCAS kicked in, it would make the plane controls more "rigid" in the intended "corrective" direction, as a tactile way of "encouraging" the pilots to comply towards the correction. If a pilot really wanted to override, effectively they could do so by using brute strength to overcome the imposed rigidity, and force their preferred direction.

But then the bug made MCAS kick in on false positives repeatedly and in a prolonged manner, causing the pilots to tire out and no longer be able to overpower the AI to take control of the plane controls.

(lay understanding, and oversimplification of a complex issue, possibly wrong, take with a huge grain of salt)

For similar functionality in nano, if anyone's interested, every time you save (regardless of exiting), nano keeps a backup.

Not on by default, you have to enable it in your .nanorc (not least because you need to provide a backup folder where you want to store these backups).

Very handy. Occasionally I've deleted files accidentally or made destructive changes, and could restore a working version from the past as if I had a timemachine.

Depends on your definition of "controlled". The ambiguity behind the term is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Boeing's MCAS system was also "just software". Which in principle can be "controlled", i.e. changed, updated, audited or whatnot.

But then people died precisely because pilots found themselves unable to override or "control" the systems precisely when it mattered.

Your fallacy is the fallacy of the loaded question.

If anything open source is proving to be the last bastion of hope against the trend of being mindlessly replaced by agents.

For now.

My gut is we'll have to start learning BSD soon.

From what you've pointed out, it seems this account is having all their comments killed, presumably on suspicion (or evidence) of generated content.

What's interesting to me is that that comment (at least on this thread) was genuinely insightful though.

I see. I tend to agree in principle. I felt this with julia for example and it put me off a bit even though I was very keen on it at first

In the specific case of java however I don't think this applies much; the vast majority of improvements are aimed at under the hood optimisations rather than syntax. And I feel that any changes in syntax have been quite incremental, intuitive, and reasonable.

AND they stay around as preview features forever, so this may inflate the perception of features entering the language, when in fact it's the same one feature being mildly iterated on.

E.g. the main syntactical change in this version seems to be the use of primitives in switch statements, which was already discussed for a while, and is itself a meaningful change brought about by the introduction of switch expressions.

Why are two good quality comments on this thread dead on arrival?

I've seen this happen a lot recently, when the page still has relatively few comments. Insightful comments are dead leaving behind trivial ones.

What's going on?

In the absence of a sarcasm tag, would you care to explain your reasoning?

Just to clarify, are they 'using' it, or are they 'embracing' it?

> When you say they should have supplemented fiber, you’re also implying they should have had less meat

Why? This is a non-sequitur. As are the other assertions in my opinion. You can have meat based diets rich in fibre (e.g. the mediterranean diet), and you can have vegan diets completely devoid of them (e.g. living off McDonalds plantburgers for the rest of your life).

The problem is this conflating of veganism, which at its heart is an ethical movement, as a nutritional one. So designing studies that intentionally blur this line isn't doing anyone no favours.

If I see a study comparing vegan junkfood against the mediterranean diet where the vegan diet still comes on top, I'd change my tune. But the reverse scenario, i.e. comparing meat-based diets of a nature that most people would intuitively consider unhealthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the meat) against vegan diets which most people would intuitively consider healthy anyway (i.e. not necessarily because of the veganism) provides zero useful evidence.

And if I were to make a dietary choice for ethical reasons, I would much more appreciate insights coming from impartial science over an echo chamber, academic or otherwise.

Betteridge's law of headlines says "no".

Highly misleading title. They make you really dig up linked paywalled papers before you see any methods to see what people actually ate.

The methods say people were allocated to vegan versus "high meat consumption" foods, with participants free to choose their diets. The only restriction was you had to "try" to increase intake if losing weight, and "try" to decrease intake if gaining weight. (i.e. only isocaloric per basal rate, not across the board). Then the linked studies hint heavily that the vegan group tended towards less protein but more fibre, and roughly equal carbs (fat is not mentioned!!). Which at the very least shows the diets were not "equivalent bar for meat", let alone for "moderate" (i.e. potentially healthy) amounts of meat.

So they're not comparing "healthy wholefood vegan vs healthy wholefood meat diets". They're comparing availability and behavioural tendencies towards dietary choices when aiming for a short term vegan diet versus when aiming for a short term diet characterised by excessive amounts of meat.

I honestly don't get why they do studies like this. It's a waste of time for everyone involved. It's almost like they're only after a headline extolling veganism, rather than actually useful comparisons that could lead to real, actionable dietary insights. Really, if anything, a supported conclusion here could even be that meat diets are likely healthier given sufficient fibre supplementation.

> Are you sure? It’s really hard to differentiate nowadays

Case in point; I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not! :D

your positional encoding vector seems a bit off :D

I don't know. I read the article and it feels to me the author is a bigger problem than his attack target.

News at 11.

  Why so pedantic
  Let the man enjoy their poem
  Don't ruin it for him

:p

I see what you did there.