feanaro

Yes, it's called rr. https://rr-project.org/

It's not a "lost" key if it's found hardcoded in an easily available place (e.g. an application). It's a negligently placed key leading to a vulnerable place that is going to get into the hands of a malicious person.

Your machine regularly uses that key to access what's behind the door on your behalf; there is no reason you shouldn't be able to access it yourself.

If you don't find the key and realise it's actually a lost one, leading to a potentially dangerous place, someone else will and they won't be benevolent.

"Viewing" private data for purposes of verification of the issue. How about you just don't ship passwords in the application like some negligent troglodyte?

More likely the model has a system prompt authoritatively saying what "now" is, and it can reason about other times specified in other resources in the training set because those resources specified their own time reference.

So even though a training resource said "It is DATE today. An IMPORTANT THING happened.", it knows that IMPORTANT THING happened in the past, because it knows CURRENT DATE from the system prompt, and it also knows that DATE < CURRENT DATE.

Kagi should hire the Marginalia author.

I think they are expressing a view that we ought to offer less protection / more scrutiny to larger commercial entities, which concentrate disproportionate amounts of wealth and power, compared to smaller entities. I tend to agree.

> Even if I'm not using bisect (I rarely do), having the 'git log' be polluted by merges makes it harder for me to fit everything into my head.

How and why? Done properly, a merge commit of a PR breach is semantically equivalent to a squashed PR commit, from the perspective of the "trunk"/main/master branch. It is the commit introducing all of the changes of the PR branch into the trunk branch.

If you're about to reason about squashed PR commits, you should be able to reason about merge commits. The only difference is that with merge commits you still have the individual commit granularity available, should you be interested in it.

How does merging have the same problem? By definition, merging only requires you to resolve the conflicts once, at the point of the merge commit.

YES. I've been saying that for years. The fact that it doesn't work this way is really pretty braindead.

When will you ever be able to appreciate and look at 9T of photos?

So if we package up AI into an autonomous loop, so that it can file for a patent unprompted, that is sufficient precondition to allow patents to be assigned to such a loop?

A bit off topic, but when did "compute" become a noun? It is extremely grating to my ears.

The network retains the same topology, and therefore the same matrix dimensions, but some elements are set to zero, removing their contribution.

Well definitely, but as a net benefit, we'll have less proprietary Matrix code than before. Or the people needing to use Synapse in a proprietary setting can contact Element for a proprietary licence, in which case Element will be able to pay its salaries and keep developing Matrix. It really seems like a net win, except for the people that were planning to build proprietary services on top of Synapse without contributing back.

This situation is no different than it was when Synapse was licensed under Apache, though.

If this is truly frightening, you should reduce your reliance on Google since too much of your life is tied with them.

This is why I use a separate throwaway account for Android and no longer use a Google account for anything else.

The user should not write down a PIN then, or at least not write it down somewhere easily reachable by someone malicious. Attempting to hide data from the device owner is a non-solution to this problem and does nothing but frustrate and diminish the device owner's freedom.

Let's not pretend to be daft. The user can prove ownership by providing a PIN. They can also delete their data before transferring ownership to a new owner. (Not to touch at all upon the fact that selling devices is really uncommon to begin with.)

Nothing about any of that requires the user to cede control of their own device as a "solution".

It absolutely matters how often it happens. Otherwise we should start imprisoning everyone in the hopes of getting that one serial killer by the same principle. Some cures are worse than the disease.

It's notable that MBTI is fairly correlated with the FFM: https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13460/what-co...

It most certainly doesn't have to be intentionally insecure but it almost definitely is accidentally so. There should be no OS nor network stack running in the firmware, period.

> When the work in masonry is good, it lets guys really, really shine. When it's weak, it's hard to watch, but seeing what any mason can do and how well he chooses to do it gives you a lot of perspective on where you are.

I'm having trouble interpreting what you meant with this excerpt but it sounds interesting. Care to elaborate?

> I don't like that "crypto" means the grifter funny money shit now, instead of cryptography like science intended... but it does. My objection doesn't change that; it's a consensus thing. It might be the same for you.

As an aside about language, I don't think this is the right way to think about word meaning.

Before, it meant nothing to most people and "cryptography" to computer scientists and cryptographers. Now it means "cryptocurrency" to most people and it still means "cryptography" to computer scientist and cryptographers.

Just like you wouldn't have said "crypto" means nothing in the times before, it is incorrect to say it now means "cryptocurrency". Alternate meanings can and do coexist. The tyranny of the majority does not a language make.

And this is the crux of the issue, I think. There is no single language at any time -- this is only an often useful simplification.

I think this is a silly framing, to be honest. Of course they're allowed to earn money, but they surely aren't entitled to that money.

How does this follow exactly? It sounds like a non sequitur.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it is to be expected.

Don't buy a new Toyota. Make it widely known why you're not buying it. Remove the modem and publish instructions on how to do so. Start or join an initiative to legally punish this.

Literally anything is better than sitting and solemnly spelling out what "will" and "must" be.

What are these obvious problems?