drtz

Since I'm a little slow and it took me a minute:

SDR in this context is software defined radio.

Making a single SR-71A airworthy again is likely not the goal. The tactical need for it is no longer there and a single working aircraft doesn't add much.

Rebuilding the institutional knowledge for future supersonic / hypersonic projects, on the other hand, seems like a worthwhile target.

In the early Gemini 2 days (don't remember which version exactly) I had Gemini running as a voice assistant in my kitchen, and asked it to flip a coin and tell me if it was heads or tails. It responded with "heads". I was curious if it was actually doing something to simulate randomness, so I asked a few more times and saw a pattern: "tails", "heads", "tails", "heads"...

It continued alternating between the two until I got bored (around a dozen turns).

Unless your specific test is baked into its training, real probabilities require math and rough approximation at a minimum needs reasoning to sanity-check. Jev does neither. This isn't a new problem or anything unique to Jev.

Lying about it may become impossible in the future when you throw hardware key attestation into the mix.

https://developer.android.com/privacy-and-security/security-...

> and because those sync everywhere, this isn't a real risk.

Do they sync between Android and iPhone devices?

Passkeys do marginally improve security against MITM and phishing attacks, but they are primarily for protecting the lowest common denominator from themselves: people who re-use passwords and/or don't use a password manager.

If you use multiple devices throughout the day, registering passkeys in all of these systems becomes a big headache with O(m*n) complexity, so putting the passkeys in a password manager is the only realistic solution. But this still breaks the login flow for a very common use case: how do I log in on a device that I don't own? With a password in a password manager I at least have the option of manually typing the password.

The biggest problem, though, is how users are pushed into it without any warning or knowledge of what they're signing up for. I've accidentally set up passkeys just by clicking an okay button a few times in the past and had to go back and figure out how to undo it after being blocked from login on another computer (which computer was I on again?).

> So of course a reasonable judicial system tried to find a way to stop this wild behavior perpetrated by a woman with self-dealing political sway.

Wow that's a lot of assumptions baked into one sentence.

Unless there's a third country controlling part of Lake Ontario that I don't know about, something is off with Google's math.

62+25 = 87%

Archive link: https://archive.is/pi8xy

> The chip is made using Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.’s 5-nanometer technique, Waymo said.

It's great to see alternatives to NVIDIA chips coming up, but this really highlights the underlying bottleneck that is TSMC's dominance in the manufacturing of these devices.

I think the issue of what your average citizen can or cannot do is a relatively minor.

The bigger problem is law enforcement's use of private business as end-around to dodge 4th amendment.

Google and Apple, Verizon and AT&T, auto manufacturers, Flock, and every other business that scoops up our data has a trove of information that would be unquestionably illegal for law enforcement to collect directly due to 4th amendment protections against government mass surveillance. So, instead, the businesses conduct the mass surveillance and then law enforcement gets to access that information -- either with a warrant as is the case for Google and Apple, or with some sort agreement as with Flock.

Businesses (or individuals) that deliver surveillance data to the government, compelled by warrant or otherwise, should be subject to the same constitutional restrictions as the government itself.

"Autonomous dragnet surveillance cameras" wasn't as popular with the focus groups.

> No one expected doorbell cameras to join a mass surveillance network

Doorbell cameras were at least for individual security, initially. There's no attempt being made to market Flock as anything but mass surveillance. Surely we all expect them or their successors to be detecting peoples' faces, walking gates, and who-knows-what-else in the near future.

Reducing the portion size for junk food is probably a good thing. This is a rare case where shrinkflation may actually be beneficial to all parties.

The article clearly lays out that the take-home test was not a test of memorization, but a test of students' understanding of the class material and ability to reason about how different assumptions affect its conclusions.

> Any semblance of capitalism we have is a shambling corpse barely getting around. Do you know who pulls on all the strings of our economy, gives out student aid loans to kids who just barely graduates high school? Who controls market interest rates, and gives massive multi billion dollar contracts to Companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, Microsoft? Who approved of the printing of the 50% increase in the dollar supply in the last 5 years?

Nothing in your provided definition of capitalism precludes government control of money supply, taxation, regulation, or even government contracts.

Private ownership still owns capital goods and private decision is the primary driver of investment, prices, production and distribution in most industries. This is why we have a hard time with things that are obviously good for society as a whole, like renewable energy, efficient transportation, and low-cost housing, that don't have a competitive short-term return on investment.

> There's a huge difference between being shaken down highway robbery style "versus" pre-emptively paying the toll in advance for safe passage.

We've seen the shakedown of Anthropic out in the open. It's reasonable to assume that Sam Altman has seen it as well.

I think you're take is a bit off for multiple reasons.

First, people need transportation, not cars. For the vast majority of people, if you truly need a car, it's because your infrastructure was built in a way that doesn't provide any other modes of transportation.

Second, mass shootings aren't the intended effect of guns in the same way pedestrian fatalities aren't the intended effect of cars. Both cars and guns are providing some perceived value (personal transportation freedom and self-defense/safeguard against tyranny/national defense) with a significant number of deaths as a tradeoff.

Third, implying someone with a BAC over the legal limit for DRIVING is somehow responsible for getting killed while WALKING instead of driving is comical and darkly ironic considering drunk driving accounts for almost a third of traffic deaths in the US [1].

1. https://www.cdc.gov/impaired-driving/facts/index.html#:~:tex...

Bikes actually deliver a lot of packages and food in areas where car infrastructure hasn't made other forms of transportation practically impossible, and they do it much more cost-effectively.

On the medical front, that's quite a strawman. I doubt you'll find much of anyone opposed to using cars for medical and emergency services.

> You can’t jump up and down screaming how amazing, powerful, and dangerous your new tech is and then act surprised and annoyed when the government shows up looking to regulate it.

It's entirely possible that models could be "dangerous" to fully release to the general public without guardrails and at the same time the government majorly overreacted in this case.

Releasing Mythos to selected researchers and companies at least gives those researchers a head start at addressing vulnerabilities before the model hits mainstream.

> would we trust a Software engineer, which in general don’t always obtain the mathematical foundation to understand deep learning in the first place, on the trajectory of AI?

Valid point, but it suggests a mathematician who understands the math behind AI is more capable of grasping its trajectory, which is probably not the case.

People who are deep in the inner workings of this stuff day in and day out are the only ones who have a chance at having any real insight.

> Websites are still inferior to Flash of the early 2000s. It's taken decades and they can only mimic a fraction of its power.

Is this a troll? What could an application do with Flash in 2005 that we can't do with a modern web application today (excluding the obvious answer of runtime vulnerabilities that allowed apps to escape the sandbox)?

Maybe I'm looking through rose colored glasses, but software that writes itself seems like a pretty big breakthrough to me.

Are you suggesting that performing a specific task without unnecessary abstractions is indicative of poor quality?

> Having an account on a company's platform is a privilege, not a right.

Businesses can lose a lot traffic by not being present on Facebook and Instagram, so being unjustifiably banned is doing measurable financial harm in many cases.

Even as an individual it can be a huge pain to not have Facebook. The local individual sales market (e.g. classified ads) is dominated by Facebook Marketplace now, for example, and not having access to that market makes it difficult to sell things.

Meta has a responsibility to the community because of their position as the de facto platform for many activities. They've even intentionally positioned themselves to dominate. Having laws requiring them to act responsibly is totally justifiable.

Yeah it's bad, but AI isn't required for this type of thing to work.

My anecdotal experience is my Facebook account was compromised several years ago after TOTP 2FA was disabled. Didn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy about Facebook security policies at the time, and this new attack just reaffirms that.

Yes this is Google helping vendors block access to their APIs by using hardware attestation.

I recently hit the same wall trying to directly my garage door opener's API (MyQ).

I'd be amazed if Google enabling this behavior doesn't violate some EU competition laws.

I'm not a handyman, but I am a man who happens to be handy.

I have done quite a bit of painting and caulking for a guy who's not in the profession. I despise both with a passion, though, especially caulking, and I have never once been satisfied with a single paint or caulk job I've done. I feel like I'm the embodiment of "be bad at this for a long time," although I'm objectively probably halfway decent at it.

That is to say I think Ira Glass' quote of "You've just gotta fight your way through" to get where you want to be seems especially meaningful in the context of something like painting, where most everyone _can_ do it (or writing / storytelling in Ira's case), but very few are actually good at it.

> What are you talking about, it had the option for nuanced responses

The prompt allowed for exactly four valid outputs and explicitly disallowed explanations and qualifiers.

> Output exactly one label: True, > Mostly True, Misleading, or False. > No explanations, no qualifiers.

How is that a nuanced response?

> These types of experiments prove to me that there is no real "reasoning" happening and "reasoning/thinking"

My suggestion is that five presumably reasoning and thinking humans would also have variation in their responses to the exact same prompt.

True or mostly true could easily be argued from a statistical likelihood perspective: life exists on Earth and, based on what we know, Earth doesn't appear to be all that special in a very large universe.

I think you could come up with a reasonable argument for any of the responses, hence the problem with the methodology.

> It's a weird fact claim, because the ground truth is "nobody knows for sure" and that's not one of the available options.

It's even weirder to suggest that the disagreement is indicative of a problem. If you asked five very knowledgeable humans on this subject to select the correct answer on a multiple-choice questionnaire, they would almost certainly vary significantly more than these 5 LLMs.

Not to say that hallucination isn't a problem, but this is a lousy way to test it.

> They are not coerced (stupidity is not coercion) into it

They are coerced in the same way as any other gambling: the false allure of easy money in a society built on financial struggle.