trifurcate

Yes, I wanted to mention WASM but honestly even talking about it is doing more of a disservice to modern .NET than not given the preconceptions about Mono.

Mono as a runtime hasn't been relevant in almost a decade now (since the advent of .NET Core). "I can go into the compilers to find bugs" -> yeah, that's what Roslyn is. C# lets you control GC, marshalling, safety, calling convention, inlining, etc. for very fast hand-rolled managed or unmanaged code if you need it.

I read very fast (English and code, and my native language), and I have a very vivid visual (as well as auditory) imagination. Wonder what I traded off in this setup.

What is different between building more housing and building more highway lanes?

The confidence interval comment still applies for any production or client environment I've ever deployed code to.

Unless you actually expect your environment to spend more than 5% of its time on average getting suspended and resumed. Maybe you work on some tooling that is scheduled to run right around migration time (for servers) or sleep/resume time (for clients).

Why so? Zero-order effects are not unheard of in biology. Example: the elimination rate of ethyl alcohol is dose-independent because any practically noticeable concentration of ethyl alcohol will saturate available alcohol dehydrogenases.

Why are you ruling out the possibility that training on the material may confer an advantage when the data is presented, even if the advantage may not be strong enough to pass the test without the data present in the context window?

What makes you think that the energy sector overall is immune to this while oil isn't?

Edge has this implemented in a pretty decent way.

> But if I'm a massive landlord with multiple units, I have the same advantage?

The entire point is that monopolization confers the same advantage that this scheme does.

Or, put your files under html/ in your repo, and push to /var/wwwroot (using the common /var/wwwroot/html setup)

Skill issue.

1. Your original wording, "getting a response _for_ n tokens", does not parse as "getting a response containing n tokens" to me.

2. Clearly, _you_ don't know the API, as you can get output up to the total context length of any of the GPT-4 32k models. I've received output up to 16k tokens from gpt-4-32k-0613.

3. I am currently violating my own principle of avoiding correcting stupid people on the Internet, which is a Sisyphean task. At least make the best of what I am communicating to you here.

I dunno, I get a response back for 100k tokens regularly. What is the point you are trying to make?

And why is that bad?

Your mindset would mean that Windows would have next to no backwards compatibility, for instance.

> which is a really bad idea.

Why?

"Insecure mode" sounds a lot better than "default mode". If I didn't know what any of the options meant, I'd feel safe using BlockCipherMode.Default, but I wouldn't feel safe using BlockCipherMode.Insecure.

You are just describing a (good) recommendation algorithm. TikTok's is infamously good at figuring out your niches and catering to your taste by looking at your minute interactions with the content it shows you. My TikTok "for you" page has absolutely 0 mainstream politics, rage bait, or any other "normie" topics. It's mostly technically fascinating stuff and good absurd humor that caters to my absurd taste.

Optimizing for engagement is not inherently bad, nor does it necessarily result in socially suboptimal outcomes. My TikTok feed is very engaging without having to resort to triggering my anger.

A recommendation algorithm that only sticks to a handful of given topics (rage bait and furry porn?) is not a very good one.

> I'm not very interested in this "right to repair" stuff - it revolves around demanding modular parts for quick and easy replacement. People who are actually close to the metal, who actually get their hands dirty are repairing those devices since ever.

It also involves demanding access to proprietary ICs and information like schematics. A component level repair might become impossible if you don't have access to a vendor-specific replacement for some burnt battery charging IC. You can't really fix up a silicon die like you can a dead pixel.

Definitely not a lawyer. You couldn't charge anyone with criminal conspiracy from the parent commenter's perspective.

Because you don't want any AVX512 binary to get stuck on a P-core forever.

Non-instruct-tuned LLMs are far more likely to say "I don't know".

> you can just get whatever cert is in the transparency log

That would require compromising the certificate requester.

For the future, please remove the ?si= parameter from your YouTube share links. It uniquely identifies you and allows Google to track your social circle with certainty. (Not that they couldn't do it already)

> Since the pseudo code doesn’t I’d bet there are more implementations which trust any key Microsoft has ever published

Bingo, this is the most worrying bit to me. Pasting from a comment I posted earlier:

> Microsoft's own developers failed to implement a secure authentication check on top of their own libraries and infrastructure.

If Microsoft can't use its own identity platform correctly in a flagship Microsoft product (Outlook), what chance does anyone else stand?

And, crucial to this exploit actually working to the extent it did, Microsoft's own developers failed to implement a secure authentication check on top of their own libraries and infrastructure.

> Everything is imperfect, but where I work crashdumps are uploaded straight to a secure vault and then deleted from the origin system. The dumps are processed, and insensitive data is extracted and published with relatively lenient access controls. Sensitive data, such as raw memory dumps, require a higher tier of permissions. In order to be eligible for that higher tier, your developer machine has to be more locked down than that of people who are not in the secure group. (You also need to have a reason to need more access.)

From my understanding, this is more or less how the Microsoft system was designed with credential scanning and redaction over coredumps, but a chain of bugs and negligence broke the veil.

We don't even know if the future can read or write in our commonly used alphabets.

Honestly, this applies to the entire rest of the thread too.

I actually agree with most of the points you've made here. I think the difference lies in what context this feedback is relayed to a teammate.

If I'm tasked with a code review, that is pretty much a directive for me to offer feedback. When I am asked explicitly for feedback, whether directly by my peer or as assigned by a higher up, I tend not to bother with the kind of niceties I am talking about. Still, being nice is nice. But I expect the other person to take my words as-is, so I won't mince them.

Accommodating others becomes more important to me outside of this "directly asked for feedback" context. If I'm in a group discussion, or if my feedback hasn't been explicitly solicited, then that's a trickier environment with greater potential for me to negatively dominate the discussion. Similarly, if the issue at hand is not one of baseline technical necessity (like committing secrets to git) but more open to different opinions (like how to structure an interface we're exposing), I place greater weight on trying to be accommodating. I find that most discussions tend to be of the latter kind.