gizmo686

As far as the game in concerned, the sprites are all just 2D assets. The fact that those assets came from a 3d model during development has no effect on performance. They also do manual post-processing on most of the 2D renders.

https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-146

At that point, companies could just provide an API and let users bring their own user agent, be it AI or traditional.

The problem is that history has shown that companies really do not want to do that. They will happily pay to maintain an inferior interface and go out of their way to disrupt third party clients.

Because there is an infinite loop that makes the epilogue unreachable, so it is safe for the compiler to remove it!

Sure, that optimization interacts badly with the optimization that removes the infinite loop. But half the point of UB is to avoid needing to deal with such interactions, because they are defined out of existence.

Where I live (America, but waste processing is all handled at the local level and policies differ), the landfill has a "resident convenience center" with a bunch of dropoff stations for various types of stuff, along with a big ledge you can toss things over to be sent to the landfill. When you arrive, and attendent will ask and/or look at what you have and tell you where to put it. Sometimes the answer is "you can't dump that for free. Go to the transfer station and pay by the pound".

In theory, there is also an annual wait limit to free dumps, but they can't actually enforce it.

What strategic objective did Bin Laden achieve?

If we look at his stated reason for the attack [0], it is hard to reconcile post 9/11 history with a claim of his victory.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20040615081002/http://observer.g...

Why is that the most likely outcome?

The history of automation is filled with cases where the result has been lower quality goods at lower prices.

The premise of dark matter is that it is something with gravity that does not otherwise interact with any of our detectors (e.g. "normal" matter); or that any such interactions are weak enough that it is plausible we have not noticed.

By itself, that does not exclude the possibility of dark matter having other interactions which do not interfere with our detectors.

"Visible" in this case means "able to influence in any way".

If a problem is not able to influence anything, even in theory, then by definition, it cannot possible influence any testable predictions we have.

Interesting, but not unheard of. Think of attacks like Row Hammer. No revolutionary physics needed. But chip designers cannot fully apply quantum field theory to an entire CPU, so they necessarily use simplified a simplified physics model. The resulting chips then need to be empirically verified to correct places where that simplified model diverges to much from the messy reality, which means that the chip design is only as good as the empirical testing done to it.

Add to that the potential for unknown and mis-moddeled manufacturing defects, and manipulated electrical voltages and signals, random particle interactions, and there is a lot of room for known physics to break a verilog level proof of correctness.

You don't need to prove the hardware correct to prove that the software is free from timing side-channels. You just need a model of the hardware that captures timing information.

Sure a hardware or model bug would render your proof non-applicable, but that is already the case for the existing proofs.

The bigger problem is simply that hardware designers do not care about timing side channels. Even if you did accurately model the timing behavior of a modern processor, you would just discover that trying to write software free from timing side channels is a practical impossibility.

> And then you'd need assurance that the Verilog is faithfully transcribed in the silicon, which is a can of worms in itself.

You would also need to prove that our model of physics accurately describes how that silicon would behave, and the the environment around the silicon is within the physical parameters you modeled...

It is not sufficient to work against current AI. It needs to also work against AI that has been trained by a competent team aware of your mitigation. Or worse, a competent developer with no particular AI skills.

Otherwise, you are relying on obscurity, and will lose as soon as you become interesting enough to matter.

You will also break non-AI machine processing use cases. That isn't just accessibility, it is things like search.

It doesn't matter what they charge if the patient doesn't pay it; which is what often happens with uninsured people showing up at the ER.

> Any excess money at the end of the year should be moved to the pool for the next year, not as a bonus on CEOs' 100m+ salary

Under the ACA, excess money in the pool must be rebated to policy holders. In practice, this worked for a few years, but eventually insurance companies ended up increasing cost in order to increase the absolute amount they were allowed to keep. Maybe this is still good (more claims approved), but it is counter productive to the goal of reducing healthcare costs.

> without ads, even if you make the best air fryer on the planet tomorrow, good luck getting people to realize that.

If you are Amazon, this is essentially just the multi-armed bandit problem, at it is not particularly difficult. You show the no-name product/vendor to enough people to get data for it.

Filtering out microplastics is not particularly difficult. I just checked the first water filter brand that came to mind, and their independent test results [0] reported no detectable microplastics after filtration [1]. Having said that, the linked website above does not inspire much confidence. They have independent lab testing, which is good. However, that testing appears to only cover bacteria; and even their, only two types. Their lab testing also does not indicate any sort of methodology, and it is not clear if the lab was even attempting to test the filter, or if they were just testing the filtered water.

[0] Funded by them, and reported on their website

[1] Their sample had a known quantity of microplastics, of which they had a 75% detection rate for their control sample.

Tech has been a money machine because it has a marginal cost if approximately 0, so tech companies could literally give there products away and live off of the pennies they get from serving adds. Software is one of the hardest product classes to get people to pay for because the cost is anchored at 0.

Don't underestimate the whisper network of children. It only takes one to realize that Claude gets caught every time, but super paper writer.example.com flies under the teacher's radar.

With a strong enough regulatory framework, we probably could suppress unlisenced providers and non-watermarking local harnesses to the point where bypassing them would take some technical know-how. However, I do not think there is anywhere near the political will for such a regime.

I could see this being useful in a world with a few AI providers. However, in a world of commodity AI models, can simply use a model from an AI provider that does not watermark. Or download any open source model and run it themselves [0].

The only practical use I can see for this in the world we actually live in is to prevent model collapse. Most people using AI don't care if people training future AI ignore them, so would have no incentive to switch to providers that do not watermark. Of course, this disencetivises all if the pro-social applications of this technology, and risks giving the big providers a monopoly on "known human" data, which has serious antitrust implications.

[0] Note that the watermark is not inherent to the model itself, but rather how the model is run. So this teqnique cannot be used by people providing open-weight models. It would need to be used by those actually running the models.

The details will depend on the exact implemention, but I don't think this necessarily effects output quality.

The models "natural" output is the result of a series of random numbers. The watermark works by biassing that series towards a different series of numbers. Assuming that second series is cryptographically secure psuedo-random, the even distinguishing the biased sequence from true random would be impossible with compromising the key or prng.

As an extreme, suppose your prompt was public, and the model seeded its PRNG with a secret key instead of a genuine random seed. Such an output is not meaningfully different from one based on a true RNG, but can be trivially fingerprinted by someone who knows the keys.

In practice, I am doubtful they have a scheme that is both practically useful and cryptographically secure. However, there is a lot of room below cryptographically secure that is still just as good for all other purposes.

I don't know about FedRAMP specifically, but I have gone through several procurements for federal agencies on the vendor side, and have never had any issues getting a FIPS waiver approved.

Most of the focus issues should be solvable at the library level.

Wayland has a separate wl_touch type that is also associated to a wl_seat. So that use case can be accomplished on a single seat setup.

Financer is probably not the correct word here. The common model around here is that an installer puts solar panels on your roof, and sells you the right to their electric output in exchange for a fixed fee (with a fixed annual increase). That is to say, the original homeowner never owned the solar panels, and so never had the right to sell it in the firstplace.

If the solar panels were financed with an unsecured loan, then the home buyer would unambigously own them. It is also possible for the lender to have a lien against the panels; which again would survive the home sale.

The "before closing" does a lot of work here. It sounds like the seller made the disclosure when they were legally required to. This is pretty common in large purchases. First the buyer and seller agree in principle, then they perform their due diligence. Sometimes sales fall through at that last step.

If, hypothetically, the seller never disclosed the financing, then that would be an issue between the seller and the financer. At most, the buyer would need to allow the financer access to retrieve their property. The financer could then sue the seller for the buy-out cost and/or breach of contract.

As an aside, at least around here (USA), if you see a house with solar panels, it is a good assumption that they are financed.

Who says this will be a specialized adhesive? If it works as advertised, it could be a super-glue alternative with easy unglueability. That would be an attractive consumer product; and the type of product that could easily end up on someones hands.

1 player is enough to create tension on price when "don't buy it at all" is a comptetative option. By most accounts, Anthropic and OpenAI both lose to "just don't buy" when they try charging at cost.

Craftsmanship is not dead in other industries in the same way it is being talked about for software.

Sure, that cheap desk that arrived in a flat box and got assembled by me and a screwdriver was mass produced in a factory. But it's design had way more expert craftsmanship put into it than would ever be feasible for a bespoke product. High upfront design cost, then mass produced at a low marginal cost.

That had been the state of art for software from the beginning. When you download Firefox, there is no expert programmer carefully building you an artisinal web browser. There is a CDN server sitting in a data center somewhere copying bytes out of its cache for you.

One of the things AI us threatening to do is replace the CAPEX craftsmanship, which has not happened at scale in other industries.

What AI has had more success at it replacing low end "artisinal" software; which is a category that has thus far been so uneconomical is essentially doesn't exist.

The internet transformed society. That didn't save us from the .com bubble bursting.

Keep reading beyond the ad...

In short, git has a 'create_ref_symlink' function that is replaced with a macro to '-1' on some build configurations. This means that any code which is conditioned on the success of create_ref_symlink would trigger a compiler warning when built with -Wunreachable-code. NOT_CONSTANT supresses this warning by preventing the compiler from realizing the code is unreachable. It also prevents the compiler from eliminating the dead code, but presumably that has only a negligable impact.

The type of bomb people worry about for airplanes typically are not built to code.

They do need to have some form of dedinator, and tying that detonator to a Bluetooth control seems like a design that someone might come up with.

From u/cupofmesideofyou

> For anyone seeking a legitimate source on the bluetooth device comments: you can listen to the KEWR Ramp/Company/Misc archive. Keep the date set to 2026-05-31 and the feed set to ramp/company/misc, but change the time to 0200-0230Z. Then, skip ahead to about 22:55

https://www.liveatc.net/archive.php?m=kewr_co

From ATC

> Do you guys know what happened with that - uh what is that a - 7-6 on the left?

> There's a security detail out there. Someone had a bluetooth they named a certain four letter word; so they have to inspect the whole aircraft including the cargo area. The passengers have to evacuate.

> That's crazy