srdjanr

I don't think AI will make that true more than it is now. More investment in security should on average lead to better security, with or without AI.

Also he's 16. I'd definitely be less willing to push back (especially on something like this) at his age

What if you want them to look up some papers? You need to allow some kind of internet access, which then might be exploited

With the Iran war now we should also boycott all US companies by this logic, and I don't see many people doing that

In this case nature was just indifferent to transplants as they weren't a thing even 100 years ago.

As others have explained, foreign cells usually meant trouble, so fighting them by default was a good choice. And there was no pressure to allow transplants specifically, because they didn't exist.

Also, (I think) you usually need a transplant later in life, after reproduction, so too late for evolution to affect it. So even if we had transplants for millions of years, it might not have made much difference either.

I missed that this is happening, is it really? I thought it's 5X for everyone

I like the pragmatic approach to backwards compatibility (accepting relatively rare breakage that's not too hard to fix) instead of requiring 100% compatibility without exceptions

I agree if you one-shot something, but that hasn't been my experience at all (unless the initial prompt is so detailed that creating it took considerable time).

For me it's more like being a chef but having a cook to cut up things and start cooking them, but you decide when it's done, what spices to put, and how to serve it - arguably the most fun and creative part.

I think it captures it perfectly, and the question is what are tomatoes here. Is it being challenged intellectually and proud of solving a puzzle, or is it getting praised, valued or paid?

People didn't stop solving sudokus when sudoku solvers appeared.

That's mentioned in the article:

> Further, there’s at least the possibility on the part of the developer to claim that such usage is a “parody,” with parody and satire protected at the highest levels of American law through the application of First Amendment freedom of speech rights. However, courts will often require actual commentary to be made in order to extend such protections. In that way, a store name like “I CAN’T A” (or something far more clever) has a greater chance of succeeding than simply using a play on the word “store” in Scandinavian.

It sounds like they mostly did something like that:

> The lawyers then tell the developer, “You can of course easily make a video game set in a furniture store that does not look like, or suggest, an IKEA store.” The presumed game development experts go on to explain, “You can easily make changes to your game to avoid these problems, especially since you do not plan to release the game until 2024.”

(from https://kotaku.com/ikea-furniture-horror-game-store-is-close..., linked in the article)

They also listed exactly what they think infringes their trademark.

My (very) naive take:

Was it important part of the game that the store looks just like IKEA?

If yes, that probably makes it more likely that it was a trademark infringement and that IKEA was justified. If no, it shouldn't be a big deal to change the colors, just to avoid potential confusion.

I don't remember seeing playstation controller SVGs before, I doubt they benchmaxxed that

Would you be able to get those devices at all, especially at similar price as those with closed source firmware? R

Apparently it forces your feed to show posts in chronological order, not how algorithm decides

Only if non-ASCII characters are allowed in usernames, and generally I don't think they often are

Sure, we should kill everyone who makes an honest, human mistake. Especially if it's so hard to catch that at least 3 people missed it (someone from the police, prosecutor, and defense lawyer).

> and you can't use those logs for other purposes like ad targeting

This part I guess

I wouldn't expect their detection of hacked accounts to be 100% correct. Sure, it might be obvious when a human takes a look, but humans can't proactively look at every account's usage.

I think it depends on how much time you spend learning something and "engaging" with LLM.

I have many times asked it something I was slightly curious about, got the answer after the first or 2nd-3rd prompt, spent 3 minutes in total and forgot it after 15 minutes probably.

But a few times I've spent an hour or more on a topic, asking many questions, thinking between responses, and I actually learned something.

I also have one anecdote - I (think) I understood basics of quantum mechanics intuitively for the first time. Of course it's probably superficial and maybe not 100% correct, but it is better than every time I tried to understand it before.

It definitely wasn't a single prompt, but two hours of back and forth, with a lot of time spent thinking (me, not LLM) in between. There were multiple times where I misunderstood something, so if I just read a book I'd probably get stuck many times.

It's a very lagging metric, and also influenced by sales, market conditions for your customers etc.

Good question, I guess you can run two identical Postgress instances and check if they have a diff

They should call themselves Time Lords

I have a few opinions on this:

1) My (and possibly other people's) last impression of this was when it was merged just based on all tests passing. In many projects, relying just on tests would definitely be reckless (not sure about coverage/quality of Bun tests).

I didn't follow much what where they doing later, maybe it is indeed good enough. For example, Claude Code using it and being fine is reassuring.

2) Making such a big decision that quickly and not (even having the time to) consulting community doesn't really inspire confidence.

3) You can be reckless even if everything ends up being perfect in the end.

Going 80mph in a city, you probably have like 80% chance of not crashing. And if you don't crash, you just had a much faster and more fun trip. Doesn't mean it wasn't reckless.

Of course he has the right to do it, no one disputes that. The users and community also have the right to complain, or stop using and supporting Bun because they don't like his actions

Tutorial was great! And I would like the option to give up.

They could be using this just to throw out the obviously bad CVs, and then manually go over the rest. I'm not sure if they do this in practice, but the tech itself can be useful.

Also if HR was really useless (or actively hurting the company) they wouldn't still have a job (or they'll lose it eventually). No one likes burning money for no reason. So obviously they are doing something useful.

That's a good idea.

The only drawback I see is that you should compare every pair of CVs for best results, and that grows quadraticly with number of CVs. Of course you can settle for fewer comparisons and not perfect results. But then I'm not sure if you can hit a good ratio of quality and token spend.

It makes sense to me intuitively (though I'm not sure if my reasoning is actually correct).

Worse model may not "know" enough to distinguish between a 70 and a 100 candidate, so it's expected that it's output has high variance. But a better model might "know" enough, so it can be more confident and thus more consistent.