XorNot

Except people love torture anyway. Even people who say they're opposed to torture usually do so in terms of "it's bad to torture people, but like, it would totally work". It is a ludicrously common sentiment.

The actual conspiracy was the CIA told the Zero Dark Thirty producers that the Intel to find bin Laden came from torturing a detainee, which was a straight up lie (namely: under standard interrogation he provided the intelligence they needed...then they waterboarded him over 100 more times which provided absolutely nothing).

Which is exactly my point. Under normal circumstances you inexorably move towards the future. But we generally believe we have freedom of action about the spatial coordinates.

A black hole is interesting because you inexorably move towards the singularity - which is a defined location in spacetime, and also has a boundary - the event horizon.

So now your freedom of action is reduced: you must move towards the singularity, but you also can't actually move outside of the event horizon either.

YAML is fine. TOML is a lot worse.

Nobody anywhere needed more INI files.

I worry less about chain of trust and more about continuity of business: it's not enough to be a able to stay running, you need to be able to keep delivering features which means your build infrastructure and data needs to be local.

I.e. if someone cuts all the undersea fiber optics, what do we do? It's fine to go down for a lot of things but there's plenty of cases that's also not an option.

The bidet takes care of most of the cleaning and then you use TP to check and dry off.

The main benefit is those times you'll otherwise go through half a roll (also means you don't rub through the skin).

What are you running at home, out of interest?

While I cautiously circle the AI programming concept, one thing close to my mind has definitely been whether the ultimately cloud-tied nature of it is what makes me much more stand offish to it.

None of those proposed time machines has ever turned out to be theoretically workable when the details are investigated more closely by physicists.

Okay but Musk himself deliberately and continuously uses his companies and wealth to participate in the culture war so it's no surprise it comes up when his companies do.

He could switch off and stick to building rockets and electric cars. It's very easy (notionally) to just not post on Twitter.

Not quite: inside a closed surface you can't escape, but things can repeat.

You can avoid a coordinate, for example by choosing not to go there, or revisit another one repeatedly.

A black hole on the other hand doesn't have that: you cannot revisit old locations - attempting to do so moves you closer to the singularity.

The more interesting component is that black hole physics is almost an anti-free will zone.

Everywhere else in the universe with mass and energy you can do what you want (sort of). An event horizon throws a hard shroud over that and drastically reduces opportunities: your free will to use mass and energy is significantly curtailed (you must head towards the singularity).

This doesn't seem meaningfully different to me? Like the notion that the singularity is always in your future (because you can't escape it anymore past the event horizon) makes sense, the point of confusion is what are the implications?

Roughly the general public (including me) knows that gravity is meant to have some effect on the apparent passage of time, so it seems significant but under explained what it means to be in a region of space where all possible directions lead to the singularity.

Common sense - the experience gained from your common everyday experience of reality - does not apply in black holes.

Common sense would tell you they can't exist at all because you can't compress atoms - you have lived your entire life with atoms being entirely incompressible for the practical purpose of anything you do.

Leaning on common sense to discuss fundamental physics has been wrong since round about the start of the practice of physics.

Which should inform the credibility of anyone declaring one issue or another would definitely motivate voters to come out and vote for whatever policy they want to say is a winner: the last two elections, despite enormous new voter activation, the split in preference followed polling trends anyway.

The great fiction of American politics at this point seems to be the belief that the non-voting population are definitely an election margin who'll definitely come and vote for you provided you support <commentators preferred policy here>.

Sure but are we going to do anything sensible about it or is it just a convenient culture war vector?

This is happening because copyright means you can't scan these without destroying them as a format conversion.

No one's felt compelled to try and fix that so we can do this sort of digital archival and preservation, and copyright allows works to be frozen and undistributable because a claim might exist for decades without any actual use (I.e. the number of games which get stuck in legal limbo).

If the only desire is to sling mud at AI companies but not try and improve the legal situation, then it's worse then useless because there's no intent to stop it - in fact stopping it would remove a useful outrage tool.

The idea in the title here is point 1 of the blind leading the blind: it's illegal to scan and store these books without destroying them in many jurisdictions.

If the model behaves well in a world of fake SSL certificates, then that can be the only world it sees: there's no reason to let LLMs have e2e encrypted comms that's not mitm'd and logged for their regular users.

My regular home network has components which only ever see fake TLS certificates because it's an easy way to do shared docker caching with squid.

Normally I agree, but making the implementation initially ineffective is a good way to complicate more far reaching measures.

Americans aren't standing up against this, but they might have considerably more interest if the government was instead trying to ban encrypting data in cloud storage for everyone.

There's also just the fact it's ridiculous I can't have a spare phone ready to go in a few minutes and get it back exactly as I left it.

The bigger issue is that most of the files you're likely to capture in "version everything" are just noise.

Disk space is far from cheap when the value of what's being stored is basically zero.

You can version everything today with something like ZFS snapshoting - and very quickly realize hundreds of gigabytes of noise aren't worth keeping.

LOL. If it dies, it dies.

People take the weirdest rhetorical hostages.

Except the other side of this is interrupting a service which would otherwise have succeeded: there's a lot of unattended or minimally attended processes where an interruption is just asking the user to do the only thing they were going to do anyway - retry it.

In GitHub's case this is especially relevant - the only reason to throw an error message at the user is the hope they - the human - give up and walk away (or you break all the CI/CD builds and the time it takes humans to hit "retry" gives you some breathing room).

It basically revolutionized the entire industry and thank god.

Opinionated standard formatting is now the default.

In the current environment unless people start decommissioning datacenters en masse supply will be locked up till the early 2030s IMO.

Even if you started a new fab today, it's 5 years till it comes online. The great hope here is that China's DDR5 yields represent a high reject rate of an enormous amount of new capacity that they'll dump into the market to get a sovereign capability in that area.

In don't look up anyone with a telescope could've confirmed the danger. Hence the title.

In the real world, absolutely no one except a bunch of heavily fiscally incentivized parties with unclear relationships are saying anything happened.

The subsequent dog pile of other companies to say "they were near the AI hacking too!" should make you even more suspicious: Anthropic jumped in and why was Tailscale posting about this?

So punchline, probably a good idea to electrify all the cars yeah?

Yes that would be my exact point.

More importantly that did take subterfuge: there's no way a contract that large would've been agreed to by both manufacturers if they knew the other was signing it.

The actual deals were hours apart and secret for that reason.

It's hilarious watching the conspiracy theorists do their usual thing when there was an actual conspiracy, it was perpetuated by the inner circle of a US company and announced and publicized in full once it had achieved its goal.

Yes everyone took Econ 101.

Now what do you think happens when developing new supply is substantially constrained by lead times?

Coz a whole lot less of you have ever dealt with manufacturing logistics.

Which is exactly what's happening. There used to be a lot more then 3 makers but up till very recently memory was a comedically low margin business you didn't go into.

You're old, you have no idea what the kids are into.

How accurate did the endless news reports about your generation feel when you were young?

The more interesting aspect of that is that there's an element of recall implicit in that though: if someone was active, moving around and interacting according to observers then whether they were conscious during that time is heavily informed by whether they remember it later.

Quite where that line exists then is very fuzzy because while for example I feel conscious while I'm typing this, it's also clearly possible I could but then have no memory of it.

Except that's a bad analogy: electricity is the means by which to do work.

The outputs of models in AI datacenters are the work.

The electricity company does not get the entirety of my useful input to the work as a result of me using electricity, but an AI company does.