jdub

You understand that those are different kinds of "truth", right?

With his shitty cars, orbital garbage, or CSAM generator? Or his moneyed attacks on democracy and communications? Or his vandalism of government programs without insight, experience, or qualification?

In a free and fair market, his capital would be regarded as a deeply inefficient distortion.

... which would make (our current model of) capitalism especially evil. Compared to a supermarket.

Are you sure? What is the 401(k) exposure to "AI" related stocks and broader market shocks?

"Look! I have one job on this lousy ship, it's stupid, but I'm gonna do it! Okay?" - Gwen DeMarco, Galaxy Quest

the phrase "[LLM] thinks X is happening" is good chunk of the problem

it didn't. it produced an output, and you hopefully invoked some human judgement before believing it was worth sharing, and you are hopefully expecting to be accountable if that judgement was incorrect (whatever the failure mode)

Doesn't sound nearly as good in the original Austrian (accent).

"that is not an established precedent" in response to a specific claim and "there is no established precedent" can both be true without laying down a verbose foundation of caveats

Given a nation* that decides "corporations are people" and "money is speech", let's not be unduly optimistic about (even temporary) legislation or interpretation.

* focusing on the US given this site and the outsized influence it has on global copyright

(c.f. other comments about confusing misuse of security terminology)

An easy way to remember the difference between the As in AAA:

    Who is your daddy, and what does he do?
    ^ authentication       ^ authorisation

And the all too often forgotten final A is accounting, for which you can imagine Arnold writing down the interaction in his police notepad.

:-)

That is not an established precedent. (It's not what that case decided.)

Ladies and gentlemen, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

(which is terrible, but I would be delighted if they breached it and got thoroughly spanked)

"Malcolm Gladwell has a few episodes of revisionist history"

that's a complete sentence already

This is the initial endorphin rush you get when wielding a complex system. The feeling changes when the complexity explodes in your face.

A positive vision of humanity alone doesn't bestow personal agency.

Personal agency alone doesn't solve structural dystopia.

you don't deserve your user name

You reckon large language models run by this mob of billionaire boot-licking dweebs will lead to a Star Trek style utopia? Come on.

Take a look at how modern PCs enumerate all of their non-PCI hardware. I'll put a bucket over here.

Because they're designed for different things.

Ampere's primary focus is running lots of simple tasks concurrently, at relatively low power, with lots of I/O. So, many tens to hundreds of cores, not too fast, at lower power draw than amd64, with lots of PCIe lanes for storage and network.

Apple's primary focus is user experience and power efficiency. That's why you'll find a handful of fast performance cores and low power efficiency cores, along with graphics acceleration to drive high resolution displays.

"first principles" and "from scratch" are predictable failure modes... he had very good reason to pursue a Python-like language given the circumstances and objectives

(It feels very grumpy-old-man to complain about "low effort", but I think it's more culturally relevant than ever before...)

... not investigating your field is a massive low effort failure mode. You don't have to know your field, but you have to investigate it, appreciate it, draw upon it... even, or perhaps especially, if you're standing in opposition to it.

(This is also why "first principles" twits like Elon are so annoying...)

Whoa, I just mentioned GURPS in a completely different context in this very comment thread. :explodinghead:

Cheat: "That's in GURPS. Uh huh, GURPS. Seen it: GURPS. Good idea, really nicely executed in GURPS. You'll like how GURPS did that." :-D

zig makes cross-compiling easy for a single project - but not everything is zig (or supported by zig cc)

the various embedded build systems make cross-compiling easy at scale, which means you often don't need to think about it when adding a new package

I doubt it's that complicated, motivated, or considered...

It's probably just garden variety disrespectful behaviour.

Purposeless agent spam won't be cheap entertainment forever, but you're right that later stages of industrialised abuse will be scary and unpleasant.

That's a less efficient protocol than 9pfs and virtiofs, even if you subtract the encryption.

An example of improving efficiency: virtiofs has a relatively recent feature to map pages from host memory directly into guest memory, but that's a lot of risky acrobatics if your priorities are reliability and isolation...

... but it's not supported by Virtualization Framework's built-in virtiofs "folder sharing". (sad face)

... but someone could build it on top of the new macos 27+ custom virtio device support. (intrigued face)

These are all security boundaries of a kind, some more effective than others, balancing priorities according to threat model. Running every app on your phone in a hardware virtual machine would be... an expensive choice.

It's not substantially different from previous approaches (9pfs vs. virtiofs).

My suggestion: Don't use the host filesystem from the guest at all. It'll be faster, and better isolated. It's a false convenience.

Different threat models. Your typical Android device (and Linux server for that matter, at home or at scale) is not usually running security-sensitive general workloads for multiple tenants in the same OS instance. :-)

Containers (those popularised on Linux by Docker) are built on Linux primitives like cgroups and namespaces, so they're running directly on the same kernel, same VFS, often the same FS, etc. Their isolation properties rely on (a) all those Linux features working as expected, and (b) the container runtime setting them up properly.

Depending on your threat model, that's fine, but a lot of people (including me) will say that containers are not a security mechanism.

But macOS requires[1] virtualisation for containers anyway; the security is just a bonus.

[1] at least for a real Linux kernel...