jojomodding

exactly. If they wanted to iterate on their port they would add lifetime annotations here, which are the tool Rust be uses to ensure safety. They're just kicking the unsafety block down the road. This accomplishes nothing and is not how you get Rust to deliver its safety promise.

Or the people that aid and support those people. Systems like this, or the Iranian crackdown on protestors earlier this year, show that in our times, an autocratic regime is able to keep power in spite of significant popular resistance. Revolutions like the fall of communism in 1989/1990 seem impossible now. If you lose democracy once, it's over.

But that's boring. Also it's already happening a lot more than humans are being sent.

Nonvoters implicitly consent to the outcome ahead of time. Which means that they can carry part of the blame--if they didn't like it they could have voted against it.

Is pdf.js the renderer that VSCode uses? You know, the one where everything becomes extremely blurry when you zoom in for absolutely no reason at all except (I would imagine) developer incompetence?

> are free to sell 0day for profit.

This is not true in many jurisdictions.

I sympathise with the author and the argument. I know the text is a rant. As such, I can understand that the proposed consequences might not make sense. Yet still, there is a fun game you can play, where you replace AI by "chess engine" and you get a text that would be fitting for a late 90s chess grandmaster but seen as totally anachronistic today:

"Chess players who don't use engines will be left behind", they say. I can't emphasize enough how much I hate it when I hear/read shit like that because I'm pretty sure, in fact, that what will happen is the exact opposite.

People who rely on engines are the ones who will be left behind. They'll forget how to think, how to move the pieces, how to solve a simple straightforward mate in 3, how to tell victory from stalemate... they'll forget how to fucking LEARN. I think that's the part that makes me the saddest. What a beautiful thing it is just to play chess.

If you think Deep Blue can do better than you, why would you just let it? Why wouldn't you aim to be better, to learn how to be or do something that a chess computer would never do?

I do not get why not needing proof objects is desirable. It seems good to have a defined way to store proofs that has a very tight spec and can thus have competing implementations, like in https://arena.lean-lang.org/. The LCF approach couples the proof format to the module system of a programming language.

Occasionally, inspecting that proof term is useful to see what happened in a proof.

Then again, I also like dependent types.

Its a software where you type your maths proofs in and a "yes" comes out. Except if your proof is broken, then a "no" comes out. Of course, sometimes the computer is just a bit dumb at intuiting the intermediate steps, so you need to explain like a 10-year-old child (or else you get a "no" as you failed to convince the computer). And storing all these explanations takes memory. And you have to speak the somewhat idiosyncratic language of the computer, which you can imagine a bit like LaTeX but more easily parseable and less ambiguous.

The blog article author is saying that Lean is like a younger child (that needs more intermediate steps explained), stores proofs more inefficiently (taking more memory) and that its computer proof language is harder to read for humans. Additionally there is a technical point about dependent types, which are the principle around which the computer proof language is organized (the same way a programming language might be organized around object-orientism).

Giving something that has no internal concept of time (or identity for that matter) a prison sentence of n years seems kinda ineffectual.

Nothing is stopping you from using LLMs when contributing to their project (I think). One reason might simply be that they would rather spend the (very sparse) donation money on anything else but tokens.

Tell your kids about FUCK, the most fun way to play with them bricks...

actually his uncle.

And we collectively decided that it's fine, you don't actually need to be able to solve 1234×5678 in your head.

But I am not sure you can compartmentalize the specific skill we can out-source to AI. I would not agree with "you don't need to be able to think in your head."

For a start by not tearing down the systems that kept inequality in check in the past. Like union membership or banking regulation etc. just to name some examples.

Is there a Docker-to-WASM pipeline, and how does it do anything differently from emulating x86?

Maybe the special agents watched the talk in their free time

> One of the most corrupt

It's on like place 10 out of 180, which makes it one of the least corrupt places.

It also has some surprisingly non-boomer departments, like the Sovereign Tech Fund. Either way you need to celebrate police doing good things and immoral actors being exposed, it can only have good outcomes.

Perhaps it deters them, or deters the next generation of such hackers. Or at least it makes their life less enjoyable, which is fair since they were only able to afford their travels due to their illicitly acquired wealth.

The wildfire industry brings growth but it would be a whole lot better if we didn't have wildfires.

The same thing is true with computers. Imagine all the nice things we could have if we didn't have to worry about people abusing the systems we build.

So apparently some CCC-connected hackers already unmasked one of them years ago (as reported in the update, which could have also just linked to the talk here: https://media.ccc.de/v/37c3-12134-hirne_hacken_hackback_edit... )

Makes you wonder if the investigators discovered this independently, or decided to maybe ask the hackers already involved in defending against them for help...

Given that religions are losing members, especially the youth, and that the most people do not join the military, what will keep disseminating the ideas in the future?

They are not, sadly. Or rather, many voters care about many different things and the resulting metric is not that sensible.

Not sure where you get your numbers from but 80*2 is more than 90. Germany has about 80 million inhabitants.

I doubt it has been top-down coordinated. So what do you expect the article to say?

People keep getting hung up on material implication but it can not understand why. It's more than an encoding hack--falsity (i.e. the atomic logical statement equivalent to 0=1) indicates that a particular case is unreachable and falsity elimination (aka "from falsity follows everything") expresses that you have reached such a case as part of the case distinctions happening in every proof.

Or more poetically, "if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike[1]" is a folk wisdom precisely because it makes so much sense.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc

One of the reasons relationship advice subreddits suggest divorce so often is because most people with "small" problems in their relationships don't write an essay about it on Reddit but are able to solve them with the tools/friends they have. So a Reddit post existing indicates the relationship has serious flaws.

This is not to defend the study, because asking AI has a lower barrier to entry.

You can only show the checkbox on Linux. You can add OS detection to the checkbox and have it say "support our $OS dependencies" and put that into different pots of money. You can make the checkbox say "support our Linux dependencies" and then rely on Windows people not selecting it.

Well, yes. The GOP's disdain for renewables is well-known and not recent.

In what sense are governments in the EU more nosy than the one in the US or China?

How do you figure out which is the case, at scale?