That is why egcs was launched, to get around the inability of the old team to do gcc releases. The issues had little to do with ideology and were about fixing a broken process and replacing it with something that had a hope of working.
I looked at it and it is impressively lightweight. It would help if it could collapse duplicate notifications, right now the notifications page is filled with repeats even though I'm not all that popular on fedi.
If the navigation simulates what would happen if we follow links to SPA#pos1, SPA#pos2, etc so that if I do two clicks within the SPA, and then hit Back three times I'm back to whatever link I followed to get to the SPA, I guess it's OK and follows user expectations. But if it is used as an excuse to trap the user in the SPA unless they kill the tab, not OK.
Clearview again. ICE is using it too, and their people think it is an oracle that is always correct, so that when someone shows a passport card or a RealID showing that they are someone else, a US citizen or permanent resident, they are usually accused of having a fake ID. It's a flawed tool and it misidentifies people sometimes.
I understand why OpenAI is trying to reduce its costs, but it simply isn't true that AI crawlers aren't creating very significant load, especially those crawlers that ignore robots.txt and hide their identities. This is direct financial damage and it's particularly hard on nonprofit sites that have been around a long time.
What does "verified" mean here? You can verify that a real company posted that job, but you can't verify whether it is fake in the sense that they really have an H1B candidate they really want for the position and they are just advertising it to meet legal requirements.
Conservapedia had to have a person create each article and didn't have the labor or interest. Grok can spew out any number of pages on any subject, and those topics that aren't ideologically important to Musk will just be the usual LLM verbiage that might be right or might not.
You dropped my words "into trying something more effective". Steering people into treatments found to be more effective is, precisely, giving people the best available information. Ivermectin is great if you have a parasitic infection. It doesn't help against viral infections.
People were literally buying horse dewormer when their doctors wouldn't prescribe it for them. "Influencers" were selling it. So the media were being accurate. To the extent that this made people look dumb, the intent was mostly to shame them into trying something more effective.
This is going to be a huge problem for conferences. While journals have a longer time to get things right, as a conference reviewer (for IEEE conferences) I was often asked to review 20+ papers in a short time to determine who gets a full paper, who gets to present just a poster, etc. There was normally a second round, but often these would just look at submissions near the cutoff margin in the rankings. Obvious slop can be quickly rejected, but it will be easier to sneak things in.
I think on HN, people waste too much time arguing about the phrasing of the headline, whether it is clickbait, etc. and not enough discussing the actual substance of the article.
You're right, mostly, but the fact remains that the behavior we see is produced by training, and the training is driven by companies run by execs who like this kind of sycophancy. So it's certainly a factor. Humans are producing them, humans are deciding when the new model is good enough for release.
Agreed. I used to review lots of submissions for IEEE and similar conferences, and didn't consider it my job to verify every reference. No one did, unless the use of the reference triggered an "I can't believe it said that" reaction. Of course, back then, there wasn't a giant plagiarism machine known to fabricate references, so if tools can find fake references easily the tools should be used.
Cute. But please don't use this, because in addition to making your text useless for LLMs it makes it useless for blind and vision impaired people who depend on screen readers.
6,000+, and those machines served many others (back then there were tens of thousands of machines on the Internet, but probably 10x as many that were connected to these by relays that handled email or Usenet traffic).
Well, sort of. RTM underestimated the effect of exponential growth, and thought that he would in effect have an account on all of the connected systems, without permission. He evidently didn't intend to use this power for evil, just to see if it could be done.
He did do us all a service; people back then didn't seem to realize that buffer overflows were a security risk. The model people had then, including my old boss at one of my first jobs in the early 80s, is that if you fed a program invalid input and it crashed, this was your fault because the program had a specification or documentation and you didn't comply with it.
Agreed. Some of the big companies seem to be claiming that by going with ReallyBitCompany's AI you can do this safely, but you can't. Their models are harder to trick, but simply cannot be made safe.
No, because as the parent comment suggests, if you have solar+wind backed by natural gas and battery storage, if the battery storage isn't enough the natural gas plants can quickly fire up. But coal plants don't have this ability, so it doesn't work as well in this environment (which is today's environment).
Yes, natural gas is now cheaper than coal for power generation, and solar has become much cheaper. Even disregarding environmental concerns, it's just not a good choice any more.
And that problem was largely solved by robots.txt. AI scrapers are ignoring robots.txt and beating the hell out of sites. Small sites that have decades worth of quality information are suffering the most. Many of the scrapers are taking extreme measures to avoid being blocked, like using large numbers of distinct IP addresses (perhaps using botnets).
The urban stations raise a lot of money locally (through pledge drives, and by hitting up local companies for underwriting, which is basically advertising). The rural stations don't, too few people. The rural stations get CPB money, and some of that goes back to fund shows that they carry, but mostly it's the cost to operate the stations. The urban stations aren't being propped up by the rural stations, there's too little money, even including the money that they get from CPB.
In the SF bay area, KQED (NPR affiliate) has a lot of coverage of local SF and Bay Area politics. The Pacifica station, KPFA (public radio but not an NPR affiliate) has more.
Rural stations relied heavily on CPB funding; urban stations get most of their funding from donations or corporate underwriting. So big city public TV and radio will survive, but those in less populated areas might go under unless some other source of funding is found.
An animated GIF is essentially a video with a large number of restrictions and poor compression compared to an actual video. Often sites convert animated GIFs to videos because the result is smaller and works better.
We shouldn't use the word "poaching" in this way. Poaching is the illegal hunting of protected wildlife. Employees are not the property of their employers, and they are free to accept a better offer. And perhaps companies need to revisit their compensation practices, which often mean that the only way for an employee to get a significant raise is to change companies.
Perhaps the thinking is that if someone is asked, how fat is Kim, they've been outed so they might as well quit. But if employers start asking that of any Asian remote work applicant, then they can just brazen it out.
I'm now seeing this all over the place, and if it worked up to now then that's over. NK will just give people a recommended way of answering the question, and if they follow the script they won't get in trouble. Like perhaps, Kim who? Oh, the North Korean leader? Sorry, I have no idea. Further questions about NK can just be deflected with "I don't follow that stuff, sorry".
I'm skeptical of the claim that this change will "silently break so much existing code". For it to change the behavior of code, the first member would have to be smaller than other members, someone would have to use this construct to initialize union objects, and it would have to affect the behavior. In any case, it's standard for the Fedora, Ubuntu, and Debian developers to go through all the packages and test with new GCC versions before they come out, so that issues are fixed before the new compiler is released.