amoss

Nothing in the kernel log and the steam log shows a trace, but no debug symbols, only raw addresses.

Wayland has been "nearly ready" for so long that it is easy to miss progress. I installed an arch desktop three months ago and setup kde with wayland, expecting that I would revert to xorg when something broke.

So far everything seems to work - although the machine has a strange glitch. Processes randomly die, but only if they have a render surface. Typically it happens to factorio or to the steam ui component, which are both incredibly stable.

interesting take.

the aaa games industry is struggling (e.g. look at the profit warnings, share price drops and studio closures) specifically because people are doing that en masse.

but those 90s games are not old - retro has become a movement within gaming and there is a whole cottage industry of "indie" games building that aesthetic because it is cheap and fun.

We prefer to call it "engineering"

In a different place a long time ago we were approached by a company that wanted a collaboration. They had a very specific project in mind, with requirements already set. It was a humanitarian project to "find earthquake survivors". If you read the requirements in a very positive way it was an ethically clean project.

But the company is a major defense contractor and it was very unusual for them to be involved in humanitarian work. So it made sense to question the requirements after a less generous reading. Detecting mostly occluded humans in a highly cluttered and destroyed urban environment has other use cases. They got as far as "highlighting the survivors with a laser designator" before I started to ask some very pointed questions and start discussing the ethical considerations of us helping to build a system to kill people.

I was asked to leave.

After that meeting the potential collaboration was rejected and it never came up again. The company continued shopping around other places to get help building their "earthquake rescue system".

Never get distracted. Always question the purpose of work. Consider ethics.

Getting another job can be a pain. Living with knowing what you helped to build would be much harder.

return false

My heart goes out the cryptographers. All that code, written over decades, that assumes coin flips are 50:50. So much updating and rewriting to do. Quite a few algorithms that will need a rethink to remain fair.

Ah! That makes much more sense now :) Thanks for the link

Who is Barbara?

Publish or perish made manifest.

If you solve chess then you have a tree that is too large for us to currently compute (about 10^80 although my memory may be way off). Annotating that tree with win / loss / draw would allow an optimal player without search. The two obvious approaches to compression / optimization are to approximate the tree, and to approximate the annotations. How well those two approaches would work depends a lot on the structure of the tree.

This result seems to tell us less about the power of the training approach (in absolute terms) and more about how amenable the chess game tree is to those two approaches (in relative terms). What I would take away is that a reasonable approximation of that tree can be made in 270M words of data.

Is the continuation not an activity in the present time, or that starts in the present time? Characterizing this as being in the futures seems to be an incorrect boundary case.

"Keep at it!", "Hold the line!" appear to be orders to be doing something right now.

ah ok, so it would not be pointer alignment inside the pages but instead the assumption that page +4k is a page.

I'm missing something here. Assuming there are pages at 0k, 16k, 32k etc - all of those pages are aligned on 4k boundaries as 4k > 16k. So code written with the assumption that its pages are 4k aligned should have that assumption met when running with 16k pages. It is still early here and I have only had one cup of coffee. Am I misunderstanding something really obvious?

I'm slightly confused after reading about page alignment. Why would a 16k page be less aligned than a 4k page causing assumptions about pointers within those pages to break? The 4k pages on x86 are aligned on 4k boundaries, are the 16k pages on M1 aligned on <4k boundaries?

I wonder how model collapse would apply to the AIs created by applying the results of AI-generated papers?

One easy workaround here is to keep the hardware modern, but install Teams on it. Then you can feel the ancient hardware vibrate for all other applications.

They have played us for absolute fools.

Part of the build up said that they had deliberately weakened / thinned some of the tiles in order to test what the tolerance was. It seems that they must have gotten some incredible data about the mode of failure.

That was my initial reaction, the word scam is overused these days. But then I reached the comparison section between the photoshopped/ generated images and the real photos.

Welp. Ok, well now my newest worst nightmare is a jira board with tickets for "Iran" and "North Korea" stuck in the wrong column and late-night meetings with "product" about features.

Did I write this? Are you me???

Summarized to "if you want to win play against losers".

Yay capitalism, I guess.

No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.

I've been doing something similar for years. Originally I tried to keep everything in .bash_history, but over the years and different machines it inevitably gets wiped sooner or later.

This helps (I use bash rather than zsh):

  # Sort out history$
  export HISTIGNORE="&:ls:vi:bg:fg:history"
  export HISTCONTROL=ignoredups:ignorespace
  export HISTSIZE=100000
  export HISTFILESIZE=100000
  shopt -s histappend
  shopt -s checkwinsize

But the long-term (multi-machine) solution is to keep another append-only copy, one per machine:

  function storehist() { 
  # Bug in mac version of bash stops HISTCMD getting set in function called from PROMPT_COMMAND...
  CMDCNT=`history 1 | sed -e 's/\w* *\(.*\)/\1/'`;
  if [ "$CMDCNT" != "$LASTCMDIND" ] && [ -n "$LASTCMDIND" ]  # First time, no prev, do not log random
  then
    DATE=`date '+%Y%b%d %H%M'`;
    if [ "$LASTCMDIND" != "$CMDCNT" ]
    then
        echo "$DATE $HOSTNAME:$BASHTTY $CMDCNT" >>~/.custom_history;
    fi
    LASTCMDIND="$CMDCNT";
  fi
  LASTCMDIND="$CMDCNT";
  } 
  export PROMPT_COMMAND='storehist;  ....

A little bit over the top and crusty but it has worked like that for years so I've not updated it in a while. There is a separate sync script that puts the .custom_history from each machine / container into a folder on each machine with the orginating machine name in the file-name.

This keeps ^-R working over a long period of time, but eventually that stops being a good way of find obscure commands from long ago and then something like this works:

  cat .histories/* | grep CMD | grep WERID_ARG | grep RANDOM_RELEVANT_STR | sort -u | less

The overall cost of running some script on each prompt is negliable on a modern machine and as the OP notes the disk space does not amount to much. It becomes very useful over time. I have about 20MB of shell history that stretches back to '06. It is one of things that is easy to setup, and yet the value accrues steadily over time. Across the dozen or so machines involved I doubt that the archive would have survived long-term without the step to export it outside of the shell's real history file.

This reply seems a little bit pre-baked and somewhat irrelevant for the site in the link. The OP is building up a small world network of direct recommendations, i.e. it is about as far from an automated recommendation service as is possible. The warm introduction feature sounds like a simple path finding algorithm.

There may be another lens through which to view this instead of "balanced critique of technology". Describing this as "sick" seems somewhat hyperbolic.

More generally, is it really technology that makes us anonymous or is it simply an emergent property of scale? When there are millions of similar engineers out there (to use a single field as an example) relying on word of mouth, or similar non-technological approaches seems unlikely to find the best candidate with any degree of probability.

Personally I'm holding out for "The ten algorithms that every programmer that needs to know 50 algorithms should know, but are dispensable for programmers that only need to know 40". I feel it could be a real gem, but when will O'Reilly deliver??