botanical76

Thanks, I had no idea about this.

My Google Pixel 8a doesn't show anything on either camera, but my friend's front camera did! It shows up light purple.

This would be a valid concern if it were fast enough to do anything dangerous before you could stop it. Per the project readme, it acts at a snail pace, so you would have to be very irresponsible to suffer damage from use of this app.

That said, if there isn't already, perhaps there should be a !!!BIG WARNING!!! around leaving it to its own devices... or rather, your devices.

You get used to it. It's really nice in Elixir. I'm not a fan of the fat pipe though.

It's not all bad. I've read some interesting explorations in morality there.

In my opinion it is misleading. Your "privacy by default" section has three headings which claim encryption, and while none of them are false, you can still just log everything your server receives. This is less private than What's App, and it's marketed as an Operating System -- for everything that you do. I think it's worth considering moving the encryption to be done client-side as long as there are no performance concerns.

Is there any downside with introducing this demand to legislation? I feel that there's no problem with AI generated imagery being labelled as such, and on the other hand, we have a lot to gain by establishing a reliable signal that media was not generated by "AI". Users can always remove the metadata if they must exercise that freedom. But the vast majority of users won't so it would work in 99% of cases.

You said "for the same reason I reject wearing makeup" which implied, to me, that you feel people should not (I assume you mean, regularly) wear wakeup because "capturing of their genuine features and expressions should be valued more."

I said, or intended to convey, that it is a personal preference. It really need not matter to others how a person, be it man or woman, chooses to dress their appearance (though of course there is a line, for example most places would encourage that you wear clothes in public.)

I don't believe that the asymmetry between men and women changes this. There may exist:

- an asymmetry between the beauty standards which are applied to men and women, or;

- an asymmetry between the pressure that men and women experience to enhance their natural appearance, or;

- any other difference of expectation between men and women.

I personally feel many of these expectations are harmful overall. However, this need not invalidate a person's choice to dress their face with makeup, and throwing more expectations (even unpopular ones) into the mix will certainly not alleviate this asymmetry.

edit: perhaps I could make it a little more clear that I have a lot of distaste for the way the world works for women. I agree with you largely and I think it's unfair. I just think there's a very large jump from 'women should not feel the need to wear makeup' to 'women should not wear makeup.'

I partially agree with this, but at the same time... I don't feel that shunning the use of makeup and telling people their preferences are actually a result of societal brainwash is a good solution.

If the problem is that society (in bubble X, Y or Z) teaches us our value is judged solely based on our appearance, then we should address the lessons we teach. I feel it is unproductive to play whac-a-mole with the emergent symptoms of such an underlying problem.

I think the only case where a woman's use of makeup can be considered fake is when she lies about using it.

Otherwise, it is just another way humans choose to dress their external appearance for their own pleasure, fulfilment and social intentions. It's not as if it's hard to tell when someone is wearing makeup - that is, at least when you're close enough to be able to inspect their imperfections at all.

It seems to me that this idea about makeup being 'fake' stems from heteronormative dating, where a man may feel he is unable to properly assess a woman's beauty (and her attractiveness to him) if her face has been changed in arbitrary ways. But personally, I don't think we should optimize all human encounters for dating efficiency. More broadly, there is no social contract which stipulates you must wield your natural appearance at all times. I think we need not add more social expectations to an already long list.

Mainly, I found Brave's settings page to feel very janky. Vivaldi's settings are much more polished and feature rich by comparison. It also has vertical tab support which I now use everywhere, and the E2EE synced sessions is something I use on a daily basis.

I have to track my hours at my place because the client loves to micro optimize their budgets. It's a huge pain so I'd love something to make it easier than what I have now, which is essentially toggl.com + wrapper scripts which categorize hours by JIRA feature. However, this page has done relatively little to sell it to me. What does automatic mean? What is the tool able to do? How much does it cost? etc

Another option is Vivaldi, I swapped from Brave some months ago and I've been quite happy with its ad-blocking. Plus it's tons more functional IMO.

This will probably come down to your perspective and experience.

The function is written in Go, but this is not relevant, because it does not use any Go-specific constructs. This is solely about the algorithm that is implemented.

I don't understand the function provided, so I would need some comments to have a chance to parse it. That said, I feel I am an experienced programmer, so I would not fault ChatGPT for being confused with this function.

Perhaps you find understanding this class of algorithm - doing bit manipulation in a loop - relatively easy, or even trivial. It would make sense if you expect an LLM to breeze through this task if that were the case.

Today, a computer is able to work with natural language, and even perform useful tasks with it. It can write and understand surprisingly complex code, and sometimes it works. Many different types of people of various professions have been able to incorporate it into their workflows with impressive results.

I think it lacks perspective to scoff at LLMs if they can't understand this function right now. That said, as other people have pointed out, it probably gets half points on this function already.

They definitely do not give you an Adobe After Effects project. This is because of the way they are trained. I suspect a vast proportion of its training data is not annotated with the corresponding layers, timelines, etc so the model is unable to reproduce it like that. You basically just get video AFAIK.

What is your point? Does anyone really believe LLMs are capable of understanding such dense, undocumented, and advanced code today? Or is the state of AI today - specifically at this nontrivial task - supposed to predict that it will never be able to?

What is the recommended approach for this? I feel as though the specific database should be irrelevant. All OSes are equipped with permissions models that can restrict a SQLite file to use by a single application.

This is only slightly related, but if you don't understand, what value do your notes actually have? Or is this an environment with no lecture recordings, digital presentations or notes shared with the class..? I ask out of a genuine curiosity, since I know many people benefit from live note taking. I can only imagine notes being useful if they constituted a synthesis of the teacher's guidance.

This would be true if wine was deliberately made worse quality in order to maximize some incentive behind manipulating alcoholics. I don't have a horse in this race, but this comparison misses the entire point of this particular counter to sports gambling. The sports in question are, purportedly, made worse - the outcome changed in arbitrary ways disconnected from the spirit of nature of the sport - in order to maximize the profits of the incredibly wealthy. There is no way to escape this when enjoying the sport; if deliberately throwing is rampant, you would always have to ask if a player's mistake was genuine, and your emotional investment in a game is poisoned as a result. Likewise, the comparison would be that no wine is immune from this kind of quality reduction. Eventually, a wine drinker will drink wine which has been reduced in quality on purpose.

I think it's worth mentioning some people have differing ability to memorize passively. I can thoroughly comprehend, interact with, and enjoy a book but I won't really remember details after the fact.

I can put in extra, additional effort to commit it to memory, but this is much slower, and generally removes the fun, so I've reserved this for assessed reading.

I think it is an adequate heuristic for many people that if you don't remember details about a book on your bookshelf, you haven't properly engaged with it. But I think it is not universally true.

As another data point, I also never remember the lyrics to my favourite songs unless I study them line by line.

This does not exactly solve the concern of executing random code from online, but FWIW the decoded base64 blob is easy to vet as a trivial HTML page.

This is a bizarre take. Of course, no person is completely unknown to other individuals. While my neighbour may have access to that which allows him to make crude comments in the street, this is a physical limitation. It is not at all desirable that my house has information leakage. If it were feasible/cost effective to make my house completely soundproof I likely would.

The internet is different. There are trade offs to privacy just like the real world, but it is not physical. Encryption exists. It protects real people from real governments that feature oppressive regimes. It protects them _now_, not in some distant future where N protests, elections or uprises have toppled all government entities that abuse their power. This seems to be a lofty ideal that we should all trust each other, our governments, our isps, our web services.

I think the crucial part is choice. You are welcome to blog every wikipedia article you visit, or live stream every activity you partake in over Twitch. But this is not a requirement to use the internet.

I can't figure out why you would approach the problem this way. If you want arbitrary HTTPS connections to be verifiable and provable, why not just propose an edition to the spec which does this? This seems easier than the proposed solution, which is to introduce a trustworthy middle man to all of your online purchases. It also seems to imply the request query path is public data when this is encrypted under HTTPS afaik.

I thought this might be intentional, as a signal that AI did not aid with the prose.

I have noticed something recently in developer blogs. I only know it's not AI generated if it contains spelling mistakes. It's 99% not AI generated spam if it is completely uncapitalized. If the author fixed these "errors", my certainty that it's not AI generated garbage drops to 70%. For this reason, I may adopt an uncapitalized style in my own blogs, though I'm sure it will annoy many people.

I feel that a large divide in a programmer's perception of the utility of LLMs as an efficiency boost for coding is based on a large divide in specific skills. A very capable and experienced programmer, as I have often found in industry, may not be that fast at comprehending code that they did not write. On the other hand, I feel I am able to rapidly proof read code -- be it from my colleague in code review, stack overflow, or the output of an LLM. As a result, Copilot has let me write many Bash and Python scripts at breakneck speed. On the other hand, I have allowed LLMs to decide on the architecture of small programs before, and it has often created a garbage, unintuitive code structure. It is a tool that you must use to its strengths and your own personal strengths. If proof reading the code is slower than writing it for you personally, then it sounds wise to avoid the tool.