7,939 karma · joined February 12, 2013
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/
Of the firm belief that distributed systems is the coolest area ever, followed by computer science in general. Yes, I'm a bit biased.
https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/bitcoin-mining-noise-driv...
See reddit's r/solarDIY. There are a lot of setups like this, either for full house power or partial. I have a relatively big server in my basemeent that I power this way, for example, with a battery system that acts as both UPS and a "charge the battery from solar and run off inverter when possible". Something like an off-grid EG4 is popular among the reddit crew as a way to manage this; the device tries to run locally but accepts a shore power feed from the grid so if you need it you draw grid power. No grid tie involved.
So, ironically, I've ended up with a non-automatic atomic clock that instead contains a raspberry pi pico w that speaks ntp and has a programmable LED strip. That I have to manually set every DST transition, although the LED controller handles it just fine.
from strings:
bun-v1.4.0
f6d0fcd24abd48061873c2f1a6fb2a67eee487b8
Upgraded.
Welcome to Bun's latest canary build!
This build does have a different way of identifying itself than earlier builds so it's possible this string isn't correct.(In contrast, earlier builds that I have locally have commit IDs that can be found in the public repo). I don't think it's particularly damning for them to vendor a canary release, mind you.
This is simply not true. Security flaws are a great use-case for AI specifically because they're easy to verify. If you can drive a program to segfault based on inputs, you've got a good indicator it is, in fact, a security vulnerability (at minimum a DoS, but usually you find out later it was exploitable). You could even have the AI generate an exploit PoC. Shell? Valid hole. Done.
The bad use cases for AI are the ones where it's as or more expensive to verify correctness as it would have been to find the solution in advance.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=W.T.%20Tutte%2C%20Perso....
Sloppy scholarship. On the other hand, it's simply a credit attribution of posing the problem, so it's not material in evaluating the results. I observe that the majority of references I can find that attribute this to Tutte are very indirect - i.e., citing sources that themselves claim Tutte was one of the people who formulated it - so it would take someone with a little more time on their hands (or perhaps an LLM) to track down the original...
I can imagine that sites with dynamic content and potentially unbounded query types or pathnames are in danger from particularly stupid crawlers.
But re the underlying physical thing: You might look back and be able to spot some episodes of hypomania in your uncle's life. Perhaps just reduced sleep, or twinges of paranoia, or periods of on-again/off-again hyperproductivity, etc.
Hope that if this story is recent he's doing well. The recent generations of medications to prevent and treat mania are a huge improvement on the ones available in the past, so fingers crossed.
example: "CAR’s analysis, based on physical examinations of marks on the remnants, shows that the missile that struck Okhmatdyt hospital was produced at most three months before the attack. Or perhaps even eight days before. " [1]
Sanctions and limited parts availability are limiting Russia's ability to manufacture weapons [2]
[1] https://global.espreso.tv/russia-ukraine-war-car-researchers...
[2] https://www.kcl.ac.uk/warstudies/assets/kcl-fasi-paper31-win...
I was mostly trying to emphasize the importance of avoiding the negative experiences of people interviewing when the interviewer was wrong about something and won't flex, as exemplified in a couple of comments in this thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48839767
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48840261
So to clarify my point in a more general way: We _all_ have some concepts wrong in our head, and we should all strive to be not only graceful but delighted if an interviewee is correct when we're wrong.
But they don't. I hope you, as an interviewer, have the grace to learn when one of your interviewees points out your mistake. :-) Median is O(n), not nlogn
But yes, of course there will be new bugs. But that's why 1.4.x for x > 0 is interesting. If the branch is being used and people are not reporting _more_ bugs, and the bugs you care about it are being fixed (successfully) on it, and it passes your tests, etc., ... I dunno. This is an application domain where you can do some pretty solid testing of it, comparative fuzzing, etc., so it doesn't strike me as entirely mad to jump over after a few minor releases where you can see the bug trajectory.
At least, one could hypothesize. Perhaps incorrectly. :)
I'd add a butterfly loop to this list for those times you need to add a tie-in point to the middle of a rope for whatever reason.
I feel the same way about Android auto. I refuse to be locked into some terrible, never updated or expensive subscription vendor nav unit. I have a phone. I want to be able to use it.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZBpcicZX1Dxnam2gMa...
Gemini wouldn't do a security audit. But it came up with a great set of mitigations and identified an extant XSS flaw in the process of improving robustness.
There's an awful lot of good that can come from proactive, defensive use of LLMs. I realize there's also a lot of pain when the difficulty of exploit finding drops suddenly, but in the long term we may all benefit from the defensive side of this.