bensecure

> Eg, <div><span /></div> will render as you expect because the browser will automatically close the span when you close the div. (!)

span is a bad example. indeed it will close - but then it will reopen (!) when the next text node occurs. <p> is a better example, and it will also auto close when you try opening a new <p>, which can be rather convenient when trying to write concise html.

Assuming stable diffusion is ten gigabytes, that's 2 bytes per image. 2 bytes would be too small for a short textual description of the image, let alone a scaled copy of the image.

He's saying that this is a well established fact regarding every fad diet. Usually in the sciences, a new method measures itself against a "control", which might be a placebo or non-treatment, but might be another well established treatment, such as a drug for the same disease. For a fad diet, a sensible "control", or "null hypothesis" would be another fad diet, not involving potatoes. One would only have grounds to say that this fad diet worked if it worked better than the best alternative fad diet.

Is this the same as one subject to a teardown by a popular youtuber? It seems familiar but I might be mistaken.

Either he believed his own shit or he was certain that he was smarter than everyone else.

Sounds like agency work with a visa thrown in. The doctor is ultimately paid by cuba, no?

"thats what legal aid is for" - public defenders are famously underpaid and overworked in most environs. If you rely on them for your defense it will be very poor.

The argument would be that the average user is expected to understand these privacy controls in order to make decisions about their data. If even the CEO of google, who is well positioned to be able to understand them if he chooses, doesn't understand them, then the average user has little hope.

> you're trying to avoid diagnosis, which is a slightly different game and seems harder to fake.

Even easier. Just answer ever question with what's "normal". If you're shooting for a particular diagnosis, or even a diagnosis in general, you have to actually know what the symptoms are, or else the doctor will notice something odd. If you want no diagnosis, you just have to have a general idea of what most people are like.

If the goal of the feature is to affect user behaviour en masse, then it doesn't matter what can be done to disable them, as long as the majority of people don't disable them.

Last year, when GPT-3 was already around, people managed to get it solve some of the earlier problems itself, but not the later problems. This makes sense, because the earlier problems are made deliberately easier, while more difficult problems are saved for later. To eliminate this "busy work" aspect would require knocking out those easier problems, which would be a loss for those who can't solve the later problems at all.

Even then, it seems like something being beatable by a computer doesn't make it pointless to do as an exercise. We still teach children to add and multiply, even though computers can do these things billions of times faster than a human can and have been able to do so for decades. We believe that being able to do these things in ones own head is valuable even if it isn't the fastest way of doing them. Besides, there are still many people who practice and enjoy chess even after computers beat humans at it, and in fact many people integrate computer chess programs into their practice and analysis of chess.

The advent of code problems are already "busy work", in the sense of not making much sense, and having numerous complexities thrown into them for the sake of it. People have still enjoyed them for the competitive aspect, or for the fun of solving a puzzle. Those aspects don't change when you introduce an AI that can solve them faster.

I'm pretty sure that this is one of the unsafeties that rust borrows from c, even as it attempts to eliminate all the others. Checking every addition adds a massive slowdown, without giving much useful protection against vulns or corruption.

If you followed the initial announcement, then you were presumably already hyped. The novel thing about chatgpt has been the mass amount of people who hadn't heard about generative AI in the past glomming onto the technology. Most of these people heard about it via word of mouth. They then tried it themselves and told people about it. They never even heard of tests, let alone based their perception on them.

> It loads (fast).

It's painfully slow. Probably depends on your connection and device, but I install libredirect on my phone purely to avoid twitter load times.

If they paid more for it than its worth, than they lost money the instant they bought it. If they sold it to a company that thought it could increase the value of bandcamp by owning it, then they might have gotten more for it than it was worth when they owned it, hence increasing their own value (or at least making a valuation which was previously potential concrete).

Apparently they previously had a clause in their terms allowing you to keep using any previous version of the terms subject to certain restrictions, and also maintained a github repo tracking all changes to their terms. The clause was removed and the repo taken down some months/years prior to this change. Supposedly they were added in the first place after some similar drama whose details I missed. The issue at this point isn't "what are they going to do to address this", it's "what are they going to do to make sure that whatever they do to address this doesn't get undone the next time they're feeling greedy". I really don't see them having a good answer to that, and I don't think anybody should accept whatever feeble answer they do come up with.

>This already exists in the form of a gas tax and road use taxes (registration).

Neither of these target congestion directly, but road use in general. As a result, they usually fail to do much to slow down driving (since the goal is basically just to fund roads).

>NIMBYs get in the way of building the lanes that already have demand and funding.

Why shouldn't somebody oppose yet more noise, pollution, and traffic in their neighbourhood? That something has externalities on the people around it is a good reason to oppose it.

>Extending it further really just ends up as a restriction on the movements of the poor.

The poorest are in many ways already relegated to using transit, which in most US cities is woefully inadequate for getting around. Effort to make transit more viable can only make these people better off.

> California and several regions across planet wouldn't have had to think about clearing the brush or anything else if the oil companies hadn't intentionally and maliciously misled people everywhere about the consequences of burning fossil fuel like this.

Very little of substance would have changed if they had acted differently. The main issue with solving climate change is coordinating people. The deliberate misinformation just adds fuel to the fire...

> https://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_toc.html#SEC5....

> Phrases may be marked up according to idiomatic usage, typographic appearance, or for use as hyperlink anchors.

So the original standard considered both approaches valid, later standards decided that typographic usage was invalid.

> It’s nothing like Python’s “with” that lets you define a scope for an object to be destructed early.

You can forget to use `with` as well. Destructors in python are called when the reference count hits zero or during a gc pass. These new typescript destructors apply to the variable, not the object, so they run when the variable goes out of scope, regardless of what other references there might be to the same object. If you want to emulate `with` more closely, you can create a new scope for your `using` declaration, and put it at the very top of that new scope.

> - When you recorded off the radio, you usually had someone talking over the beginning, end, or both (and this was by design, because the radio station knew that if you had a good copy you wouldn't listen to the radio anymore)

If such adulteration was sufficient to prevent my listening to the recording, than I wouldn't listen to the radio in the first place. Radio is at least no better than my recording if it always contains such effects.

> With videos on YouTube you can:

> - Which you can easily redistribute to millions

Which platform might I use to perform this redistribution? And how am I to compete with the copy retrievable from the bands own youtube page?

The thesis of deliberately deleting all these images would be premised on the idea that no one was accessing them anyways, hence they're useless. That merely storing (but seldom accessing) them is very cheap is a sufficient rejoinder to that thesis.

They added a neat feature recently where they have a popup asking you something stupid, with a button you have to click to hide it. Then, exactly as the page seems loaded enough for you to attempt tapping the button, a new popup appears from google asking if you want to share your google account with twitter, with the "agree" button in the exact position of the previous button. It didn't work on me, but seems like a pretty cool doxx nonetheless.

Either way is a win I think. It becomes effectively legal to distribute digital copies of out of print books, which up to now you had to go find a physical copy of if you wanted to read it.

Naturally. Thus, it doesn't much matter whether code is shipped in the extension package, or downloaded off the internet, since nobody will be checking what it does regardless.

It's a composition of two features, both of which are useful on their own. Removing this "feature" requires removing at least one of those sub-features, in this case eval. We could alternatively allow eval to be used, but ban it from being used on code downloaded from the internet. This would require vetting the code, rather than a fully automated check. The goal of such a removal is, supposedly, to enable manual vetting to be more effective. However, the only reason to prefer an outright removal over a conditional ban is that it obviates the need for manual review. Do you see the contradiction?

Detect if the extension downloads and executes arbitrary code, and ban it if it does. That should be just as easy to detect as detecting that the code does something bad directly. In fact, the way extension policing works is (afaik) completely reactive: if someone reports that an extension is doing something bad, then the extension/the developer thereof is banned. No/minimal policing is done at the time of publishing. The exact same policy applies unchanged to extensions that download malicious code instead of packaging it directly: wait until someone complains about the malicious code, ban the extension for having malicious code.

non existent domains are the ones that are most likely to be somehow personal to the user, because they weren't trying to enter a domain at all but it got interpreted as one accidentally. Eg a password they meant to type into a password field but the url bar was highlighted. If they were interested in statistics regarding popular domains, like google or facebook, then it would actually be less of a privacy intrusion, because it would only end up telling you about populations, not individual users.

I don't know what they actually intended to use this data for, but its telling that they don't mention that in their proposal.

If you open your google account settings, the very first section is labelled "privacy and personalization". If you click on that, the option to disable youtube watch history shows up. In terms of "dark patterns", they do have a nag prompt begging you to reenable watch history which shows up in the recommended videos section of a youtube video. The only way to disable this nag permanently is seemingly to block it with uB0.

> (large, blue skin, but white and tasteless on the inside).

That's just farmed blueberries. Wild blueberries are smaller, with blue and much more flavourful insides. It's an unfortunate reality with grocery stores that since people buy based on looks, farms will optimize for what looks good rather than what tastes good.