asveikau

The other thing is that qemu is so many things. It can be a CPU emulator, a full system emulator, and a frontend to a virtualization engine. And all of this for so many different systems. It's kind of remarkable that all of this is called by the same name.

The M dash stands out, as does "no bindings, ..." but I feel like the LLM would have gotten the correct use of the question mark when they rhetorically ask "why?"

Sounds like quite an ordeal, hope things are going well now.

Seems like the title order is incorrect at the time of this comment. It says Qwen 3.0 Image, but it's Qwen Image 3.0.

Doesn't zwave use a different frequency, and zigbee and thread are both 2.4ghz? Perhaps that makes it a more fair comparison?

> "that one moderation style" we already know from current big tech platforms.

> The kind where malicious intent is okay if the words are nice.

Where are you experiencing that? I hit "report" on social media for overt, violent threats and hate speech all the time and I almost never see moderation kick in.

Doubtful. Ogg is a container format. Celt is a specific audio codec.

I believe celt was superseded by opus.

I've used unix-like OS's for 28 years and I don't remember coming across it as a password.

It is a common username (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toor_(Unix) ), the machine I am typing this on has it.

Win95 technically had better memory protection than classic Mac OS, but that didn't matter much when you ran something that crashed the whole system.

Having a root password of "toor" is very clever. Nobody will figure that one out.

I remember when I got into Linux in 1998, I had an Intel machine but it was common to hear from people in online communities with macs talking about mklinux.

A little bit later there was a more typical macppc port.

It has the vibe of a corporate company doing post hoc justification for a decision they already made.

And then the commenter provides a parallel to how willing they were to put money into Google+, i.e. they appear willing to put money into a relatively low usage product when they feel like doing it.

Probably not right to diagnose an allegory, but does it sound to anyone else like Jim might have bipolar disorder?

When you mmap a file read only, the OS fills it in on a page fault by reading. There's no writes.

> Imprecisely yeet the stepper motor all the way left/right, toggling the target temp between “really really hot” or “really really cold”

> Option 2 certainly is the “jankier” of the two options, given that it relies on a second-order property (target temp) to power the unit on/off… but hey - whatever’s easier, right?

Isn't this basically how a thermostat works? I.e. there is a component that is binary on/off, and a thermometer is used to decide to switch on or off.

> - I literally endure calibre because that's how I feed koreader. Any alternatives?

On first exposure to calibre I was put off by its weird UI and how opinionated it was about filename conventions. But I learned to accept that it's the best solution out there with the most community support, and it grew on me. There are also a few third party projects that can interact with its database.

What I was able to skim is a bit more complex like that. Page 42 of Part 2 says using it "as a tool" produces copyrightable works:

> As described above, in many circumstances these outputs will be copyrightable in whole or in part—where AI is used as a tool, and where a human has been able to determine the expressive elements they contain. Prompts alone, however, at this stage are unlikely to satisfy those requirements.

Then, since this stuff is changing a lot, they hedge with:

> The Office continues to monitor technological and legal developments to evaluate any need for a different approach.

I'm not a lawyer, but based on everything I've read on the topic I think there's a solid argument that there are legitimate questions about the use of copyrighted material in training data, and whether or not the output of an LLM should be considered a derived work. As I googled it, it seems like courts have mostly called it OK but maybe this matter isn't 100% settled or converged upon a single answer.

Questions of identity are established at a higher level in user mode by TLS. Pushing all that into the other side of the kernel interface again seems not great.

Imagine if handling that were a kernel feature completely hidden from you and there was no way to replace it in user mode, or even have visibility into its failure modes. I'd say that's worse.

I disagree with this. Separating lookup from connect(2) or sendmsg(2) is cleaner. If an application doesn't care about the difference, most people are using higher level APIs built on top anyway, and most of those will provide a quick way to hide DNS details from you.

It is exactly the United States you grew up in. You just were not aware.

It's not like people having good reason to be skeptical of police is a new thing.

It's not standard conforming C. asm() is an extension.

In the post iPhone era, a lot of what gets sold as security features is actually just removing functionality from the device.

In early days of this, I honestly think it was rooted in the famous Steve Jobs paranoia, the one that shipped without an app store and told users to use Safari, the same Steve Jobs that was said to not want certain medical devices during cancer treatment to touch him because they weren't beautifully designed. It was fundamentally about not wanting "dirty" things coming in contact with his "perfect" device. They dressed it up in language about security as a post hoc justification.

I remember in those days people would say they didn't want it to be like malware ridden Windows 98. But they omitted the weak security behind Windows at that time, which modern systems had long ago exceeded, even in the Windows world.

I guess what I'm saying is that some common practices are under specified and live in gray areas of the standard, and practicing programmers rely on those behaviors.

Sometimes other standards like POSIX cover the gaps.

I think the definition of "valid" may differ. Is this a standard conforming C program? No. Did you use implementation details of your platform to create a program that loads and runs correctly? Sure.

Most interesting C programs violate the standard in some way though.

Having the AI tools find exploits seems like a potential first step towards having the exploits be fixed.

My cameras are analog rather than PoE or IP based, but that's just because I set up the initial iteration of the system a long time ago. The standard now is to give your camera an IP address.

With many IoT type things I block access to the public internet. I think with cameras specifically a lot of people even set it up physically on a different network that can only talk to the NVR.

But tldr, basing the cameras on IP invites some of the things in this article. Anyone deploying these devices needs to think about securing them.

I think part of what made him amusing was he was earnest in his bad takes. If you heard him on a podcast he seemed kind of lovingly wrong, like the annoying uncle that you might not like listening to but you can't say you hate.

Caveat, I haven't read or listened to anything with him in some time, so I could be wrong or out of date, but that was how his public persona came across to me years ago.

> thinking about struct packing, while younger developers simply won’t know or care

That particular ship sailed more than 15 years ago. Back then if you asked people trained on high level GC-based languages about low level details or memory allocation, they wouldn't know.