These cartels can:
- handle mass synthesis of illicit substances in commercial laboratories
- handle massive intercontinental logistics
- build semi-submersible boats
- hire and kidnap radio engineers to help with communications and electronic warfare
but gee, they just can't buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearms designs - that's just too much.
Of course. The flip side is that many, many more people are in the "low/medium scale" zone than would self report. Everyone thinks they're a scale outlier because people tend to think in relative terms based on their experience. Just because something is larger scale than one is used to, doesn't mean it's high scale.
I think we’re advocating for is that it contains a sufficient amount of context. Ideally it’s like “XYZ-123: Enable multi-foo support for Bar”
Links to ticket IDs are good, and good leaders don’t let old ticket links break on bugtracker migration.
A sentence or so to let future devs know what this change meant to do or at least what initiative it was intended to support, is also good. If future devs (even future YOU) don’t know what you were trying to do, they might revert a change which, without context, looks like a mistake.
Doing both ticket link + text is ideal because someone might screw up the ticket system, and a sentence on its own can be ambiguous.
Doing neither, on purpose, is just willful stupidity. Don’t even bother with Git if you want your commits, the ones that end up in “dev” I mean, to all just say “wip,” “asdf,” and “hope it works now.”
AFAICT, large saas players can simply implement the software interfaces regardless of business source licenses like what happened to redis, no? Or is there some specific protections for API surfaces that I'm not aware of. I vaguely recall Google v Oracle almost established some protections but then got deferred in later ruling. My memory is hazy on that though...
While the rules for fair use are not black and white, one of the primary tests is whether the copying impairs the market for the work. If you want to copy pages of a book to mark them up, for instance, so your original copy stays clean, that would generally fall under fair use. You aren’t selling the copy or the original. You aren’t giving one or the other to other people, thereby eliminating a potential sale. You are copying some pages, not the entire work, cover to cover. As you say, you wouldn’t get in trouble for it in any case, but I’m pretty sure that it would be covered under fair use. But yea, if you photocopy a book and give it to your friend, that’s illegal.
Sounds like a great use case for a free tool like Gemini CLI. (e.g. "Adjust all the photos in this folder..."). Gemini CLI is smart enough to use ImageMagick or python to apply those changes.
You can never get into any kind of detail with people from a different career path.
Like, "I'm a software engineer" is the most people understand. If I say "I write tests for the GPU factory to improve semiconductor yield and screen parts" then launch into something about product binning, there's only 1% of people who'll be interested. The typical marketing person or government bureaucrat won't care.
Meanwhile "how do you know x" launches into a story about 'x', a person we both know and care about. Then we can swap stories.
That is a nice point, but the question still remains unanswered, in regards, to who will "require" or decide and drive things towards this direction. Is it humans or ..AI? Will the new ecosystem collapse or simply redefined?
Seems like there is an achilles heel for this business model: A "good guy" could start hacking companies, demand ransom while pretending to be one of the gangs, and then deliberately continuing the attack after the ransom is paid. Precisely to destroy this business model. The gangs would be fuming but there would be nothing they could do? Apart from trying to track down the "good guy" or introducing some sort of (cryptography based or whatever) proof-system that a hack was made by them?
> it takes less than one second to go through
Like Bitcoin used to be before someone had the brilliant idea of destroy the possibility of zero-confirmation transactions on-chain with Replace-by-fee transactions
Exactly, this is so flawed. Anthropic themselves said they only reported <1% of the vulnerabilities found, cause the rest is unpatched.
Give open models an environment (prior to Feb 15- so no Mythos-discovered vulns are patche) of Linux and see how many vulnerabilities it can find. Then put it in a sandbox and see if it can escape and send you an e-mail.
* Postgres still has the same problem with vacuum horizon, when a long-running query can block vacuuming of a quick-churning table. (The author uses a benchmark from 2015 when the problem was already well-understood.)
* Stock Postgres still has no tools good enough against it.
* The author's company special version of Postgres does have such tools; a few polite promotions of it are strewn across the article.
My conclusion: it's still not wise to mix long (OLAP-style) loads and quick-churning (queue-style) loads on the same Postgres instance. Maybe running 0MQ or even RMQ may be an easier solution, depending on the requirements to the queue.
I think it's just a gap in definitions. The labs say models don't act on their own initiative. What counts as initiative? I guess an API call in a for loop would count.
Historically it seems like a lot of laws haven't been easy to change. Especially when they regulate zillion dollar industries.
When your theories are consistently wrong, it's time to pause and reflect.
> I'm not young and I've seen processes as they happen.
You're wrong, but you've got your opinions though. Which you are sure are better than mine. The guy whose ancestors literally founded this country.
Please, Mr. Frenchman, tell me more about my own country.
> Eyes and ears are not good enough.
Wrong. They are the foundation of knowledge.
> You might be seeing some local effects that are biasing your opinion.
Wrong.
> I'm interested in your political views because they seem extremely left.
Wrong.
> Your political views are relevant because they shape your perception of reality and they also tell us what narratives you've exposed to.
Wrong. Not a word I can utter regarding my "political views" would help you in any way.
You're nowhere near the level of understanding necessary to have an intelligent conversation with on this subject. Worse, you arrogantly believe that your knowledge is better than mine.
Read the essay I took the time to recommend. Read the book I recommended. When you are ready to learn more, then we may have a conversation. Until then, you have nothing to add to this thread that is of any value to anyone.
>And what exactly is wrong with classic modern Democracy/Social Democracy, if the alternative is authoritarianism?
That is has become a uniparty, undemocratic authoritarianism itself, and when applied as foreign influence, it's just another mask of global neoliberalism and client state relations.
You would probably consider me to your right, but I'm right there with you. Prison should be protective: we lock up people from whom the rest of us will not be safe unless they are segregated. Ideally it is also rehabilitatative, and once (if!) prisoners will be safe and productive members of society there is no point to keeping them locked up.
If there are other methods short of prison that can render law-breakers harmless - such as restrictions on certain activities and occupations - then those should be pursued first.
The ghost of this philosophy, however attenuated, can be seen in systems of pardon and parole.
I acknowledge that a desire for retribution - to punish the evil-doer; make them suffer for what they've done - is a strong impulse (I feel it myself!), deeply imbedded in our tribal psyches, but it should be fought, not indulged.
This seems to me to be the only moral basis for a system of justice and incarceration, though I have no idea how to nudge a society towards this model. Some northern European countries approach it.
but gee, they just can't buy a machine shop and hire or kidnap talent to make 100-year-old firearms designs - that's just too much.