foolswisdom

It's part of the original selling points of python, so it's not surprising that we've never stopped doing it.

Note that the vulnerability applies to the Java library (or systems that use it, like Spark),as mentioned in the original source.

> The article never says how much they detected. I can only assume it’s because it’s a nothing amount. If it was significant they would have been saying how much. It’s hard to take the article seriously as a result.

Did we read the same article? There's a table with the amounts of different metals, with the amounts found in each of the different samples.

I'm not sure I follow. Traditional computing does allow us to make this distinction, and allows us to control the scenarios when we don't want this distinction, and when we have software that doesn't implement such rules appropriately we consider it a security vulnerability.

We're just treating LLMs and agents different because we're focused on making them powerful, and there is basically no way to make the distinction with an LLM. Doesn't change the fact that we wouldn't have this problem with a traditional approach.

I think the research by anthropic released recently showed that language is handled independently of the "concepts" they convey, so first you get the concepts, then you get the translation to language.

> Fed started raising rates in Apr 2022, at which point leaders started freaking out because they know what higher rates mean, and by Jun 2022 the Fed was raising them in 0.75% increments, which was unheard of in modern economics.

You're basically making the case that it happened fast, and went up high, but everyone who paid attention to interest rates understood it was only a matter of time till it had to at least revert back to pre-covid rates (whether you think that's 1.5 or 2.3 or something, depending on how you measure), and that obviously there would need to be real layoffs after.

The excuse is really saying "it turned out more extreme than we thought", but was the behavior take responsible assuming non-extreme rate changes?

I'm sure this will be written up somewhere as an example of Google doing a good job at customer relations, despite the disaster it is for said customers.

The sounds like exactly the point OP is making. The way LLMs are spoken about implies much more than actually demonstrated.

That's nominal profit margins. It doesn't take into account the way that different parts of these conglomerates take money from one pocket and put it in the other (e.g. insurance and Healthcare providers), which means it doesn't show up in the profits for your first pocket. This is why the fact that Healthcare platforms are vertical monopolies (not just horizontal monopies) is important to this conversation.

(separately, profit capping rules means that once a monopoly is cemented, once a company has moved as much as it can from one pocket to the other, there's an internal incentive to spend money on bureaucracy).

A la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit.

> So what am I to do when I see something from this same source that I don't know about?

Well there's always <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect>. Sounds like your not as vulnerable though.

The fact that they shut down Google domains (and cloud domains now uses squarespace, who bought Google domains) shows that you can't necessarily trust they won't shut down critical GCP services either.

It matters to the companies whose business model is to make money because they have moat.

To frame it differently, if you want people and businesses to do whatever they want, you need to make sure that the businesses they depend don't become platforms without meaningful competition. But of course the dream of every company is to be so big that they essentially own the market / space.

That's true until you become big enough that common carrier regulations apply to you.

Besides, how does the first amendment enshrine that?

> You write that you can only think of games, some productivity software and legacy enterprise software as the reason for why your OS would matter. That sounds like you're a Linux user?

Or a windows user. Like myself as well.

It doesn't seem like this challenges anything but the market for gaming devices (not general purpose PCs). Is that correct? And if so, is the title ("terrified") a little overblown?

The relationship between those two things is more like the relationship between burgers and fries, two things that some people may think belong together, but having a claim on one surely has connection to having a claim on the other.

There are two different trials in the USA, one focused on search as a product (which Google lost, and plans to appeal after remedies are determined), and another antitrust trial about advertising (of which the trial happened, but no ruling yet).

I don't know much at all about the ads ecosystem so I have no idea how may adsense should be playing in either trial though.

That's because license requirements are on _other_ users (who are being licensed to use it) to follow, not the owner (who _owns_ it and doesn't need to follow the license terms the owner requires of others).

Nevertheless, not every license is open source, open source does have a definition, and it's not about whether the owner is following their own license.

It doesn't seem like there was an additional recent event here, but the article summarizes the activity so far.

The ipde.com blog has many posts covering the events as they happened: https://ipde.com/blog/tag/mavexar/, the author Andrew_Russell is also on HN.

I would think student loan forgiveness is bad in the way bailing out banks is bad. It solves a specific problem now, but if you don't figure out a way to change the way things work it will simply happen again. It can make sense if it brings existing obligations in line with whatever new plan is offered (assuming that makes sense given the plan), but by itself it sounds like a way of sneaking in free tuition instead of making (and debating the merits of) free tuition.

For anyone who (like me) was confused at what this is, it's a Unix like OS for embedded systems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX

It's a parameter passed to the tcl_m function it's enclosed in.

Appears to be a reference to https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Kwisatz_Haderach

Related to the playful vs serious, I got a lot out of this essay

> The Playful and the Serious: An approximation to Huizinga's Homo Ludens

<https://gamestudies.org/06010601/articles/rodriges>

In my experience, I might like a cool bed if I was hot in the evening (say, I was physically active). Otherwise, I prefer a cool room with a nice blanket.

The article says that the judge wrote that in order to comply with protocol they were required to hold onto emails for longer than they did, he did not say that they could never be deleted.

Skimming the article I don't see this information: what's the false positive rate?

The article says that the blood test (if positive) is followed up with a scan to confirm the diagnosis, but if there were to be a lot of false positives that wouldn't be so simple.

EDIT: okay, reading the original paper, appears the false positive and false negative rates are pretty much equal.

It could definitely be seen as part of that strategy, but do you mind elaborating why you think "this launch confirms it"?