dcrazy

That is a pathological use case for OpenAI, and precisely why they have instituted these limits. Part of the tradeoff of doing your work on someone else’s computer is they get to set the rules about when you use it.

“In reality fossil fuel is crap and we don’t need it”

The second half of that sentence is what makes it clearly an ideological assertion.

Asserting fossil fuels are crap betrays you as an ideologue, rather than someone who is solution-oriented.

Fossil fuels have amazing energy density, fantastic refueling characteristics, and a highly developed production and delivery infrastructure. Electricity only has the last one, and even then you have to take marks off for lack of widespread DC in most places on Earth where you can fill a Jerry can with 93 octane.

I know that I can only afford to drive an EV because of a stack of dependencies that work out Just So for myself. I would love for the world to move en masse away from fossil fuels and hydrocarbons in general, but that’s not gonna happen by telling the people who deploy these systems in the real world that the energy source their entire systems are built around is inferior and unnecessary.

There’s a big gap between spec’ing an SoC by configuration code, and designing one from the ground up.

That difference amounts to who, if anyone, gets the credit for being competitive with Apple.

If that second link is an in-game map, it is far from accurate to the real world. Unless it’s from a timeline in which Golden Gate Park is connected to the Presidio, and half of SF has fallen into the ocean.

The photogrammetry appears to be from Apple Maps.

Congratulations, you’ve rediscovered mainframes.

MCP is essentially just a convention for APIs that standardizes the concept of a “resource”. It spares the LLM a lot of work figuring out what the “things” are in a problem domain, and how various endpoints relate to those “things”.

Critical to the story, he wasn’t an employee. He’s a rideshare driver, and therefore an independent contractor. That gave him the flexibility to just stop accepting rides for years, but it also meant he had no legal job protection or internal avenue of recourse when his account got banned, likely for suspicion it had been stolen to be used for someone who otherwise would not be accepted as a driver.

A push containing 100 commits is more expensive than a push containing 1 commit.

I wasn’t being completely serious with my suggestion, but I was thinking of a totally PAYG model. Monthly plans could come with credits, like they already do for Actions.

The root cause analysis is separate, but linked to from the blog post: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zkxwbgr0cnmx

It is specific and technical.

Pay per issue and commit. Buy 1,000 commit credits at a time.

Might force people to review their slop before pushing it.

But then people like OP will claim that the capacity concerns are a lie manufactured to support an unjustified move to Azure.

I don’t owe you anything, much less a separately sourced counterargument. You openly admit that your opinion is not based not on GitHub’s proffered statements but on your self-admitted assumption that GitHub is actively lying in an attempt to cover up an Azure-related root cause.

Baseless accusation made from a position of zero information.

You’re torturing your own logic to make Azure the villain here. And it also sounds like you lack experience with capacity exhaustion. Things fail slowly, then suddenly.

> We installed as much hardware as available power allowed in our existing data centers while accelerating our migration to Azure.

And from the RCA [1]:

> The immediate cause of the failure was network saturation on load balancers in Central US due to a new peak in traffic.

[1]: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/zkxwbgr0cnmx

The article clearly states the module was not shipped back to the customer.

Playing with the example, the controls points don’t feel any more intuitive to work with than traditional cubic Béziers. They still exhibit annoying behaviors near the endpoints, though they don’t tend to “explode” like traditional cubics.

I find it curious that the author makes no attempt to compare his solution to other splines like B-splines or Catmull-Rom splines, given their popularity in computer graphics and CAD.

Eh? “Generate an approximation and refine it algorithmically” is a well-known technique.

What proprietary models does Cursor offer? Do they have any of the infrastructure to develop, train, and refine a frontier model?

I wonder if the author asked an LLM to turn his Black Hat talk track into a blog post. I can’t imagine prompting an LLM to produce a post this organized and fact-dense (if stilted in tone) would be any quicker than just writing it up myself.

Ultimately, yes, this seems to be a memory controller register that should not be exposed to ring 0 or above.

Ring -1 needs DRAM, so it tells the memory controller to give it some blocks. The memory controller hands back a “physical” address, and promises not to let anything but ring -1 access that address.

The exploit takes advantage of that control register to remap the same DRAM blocks to a different physical address. Since the memory controller only promised to protect the physical address it handed back, that protection is bypassed when using the new address.

There are several theoretical ways to mitigate this exploit, but it remains to be seen if the system is sufficiently field-upgradeable to defend.

I got suspicious but decided it wasn’t AI. The “Foo is the bar.” sentence construct is coherent with the overall “through the looking glass” tenor.

The blog post answers your question directly:

> For example, you might install network drivers to support your Windows programs. You might choose this option instead of installing them globally because you don’t care about networking for your MS-DOS programs and want to free up conventional memory for them. Or because those drivers don’t support running in multiple virtual machines, so you’ll take them in the System VM and forego them for your MS-DOS programs.

In the Windows 95 era, it was not uncommon to still rely on MS-DOS TSRs for important functionality. Raymond has explained elsewhere about how Windows, after “sucking the brains out of MS-DOS,” maintained the ability to call into these TSRs.

I love Raymond’s periodic peeks into how Windows/386 and later were not just shells atop DOS shells, as they are often derided.

What did the software engineers hope to learn from this tour?

I can’t believe I have to say this, but… not all dogs bark at strangers. This is highly breed- and dog-dependent.

That’s the opposite bet from what the bar owner placed.