valleyer

A proper fix is not to shell out to a command at all; use getpwnam(3) or similar.

> This doesn’t tell me a whole lot, because my intuition for QALYs is weak. How strongly should I prefer an intervention with a net benefit of 0.025 QALYs over other things I might do with my time? No idea!

> However! When marketing the effect of global health interventions, a count of 27 qalys is typically considered “a life saved”. A life also happens to be a million micromorts, and I have a much better intuition for micromorts!

This came across as unintentionally funny to me. It goes from making the joke that one obscure unit of measure is inscrutable to saying, don't worry, because we can put it in another equally obscure unit of measure!

Right, that's the fix. So saying that it's not fixable is incorrect.

Your second paragraph directly contradicts the first.

Yeah, god forbid we explore new things as a species.

I think this is what you meant, but just to clarify: it doesn't allow it to write to .git. Read access is allowed.

Codex (at least) already imposes the macOS sandbox on the shell commands it runs. If it wants to run something without sandbox imposition, the harness makes me approve it manually.

Is the difference with your script mostly that you choose to impose a stricter sandbox profile (and not allow any user-approved exceptions at runtime)?

Oh, I was also quite happy with Fable. I was just answering the question asked.

Well, in part because the phenomenon has been discussed on Web forums that (a) have at this point made their way back into training data and (b) are accessible in Web searches that the model can invoke. And in part because the model can "know" what its initial instinct is and "decide" to go against it.

Has the US government limited access to any non-LLM ML models?

Unfortunately nowadays even the built-in apps on the major desktop OSes are inconsistent, so the temptation for third-party apps not to care is somewhat understandable.

Ah, I hadn't noticed _SimpleSetNode.

You're right, and I guess I've been breaking that rule for a while. What's the purpose there? The double-underbar and underbar-capital rules seem to be allowing for non-conflicting introduction of keywords. Is the single-underbar rule to protect standard library headers or something?

Names beginning with double underbar (or single underbar + capital letter) are reserved. Single underbar + lowercase is not. C23 §6.4.2.1.

You might not have used one, but there have long been parking meters / payment kiosks that take charge cards and even cash. Neither an app nor a human attendant is required. It bugs me that these are slowly being replaced by smartphone app systems.

What (U.S., I assume) state do you live in that has a state law requiring green grass? I've never heard of that.

Why is this? Do labs reinforce the model name during training? I was under the impression that this sort of "self-knowledge" always came from the system prompt, but I guess not...

Refund for the subscription I started after the announcement of Fable.

I have one that still works fine today (except for removing the notorious RIFA film capacitors, but those didn't fail after "a couple years").

It has ads already — for its own sports broadcasts on Apple TV+.

Yes, civil legal proceedings (and/or hiring a collections agency) are generally how debts are pursued in the United States.

There seems to be an 8 meg image here: https://github.com/luke8086/gentleos32/releases/download/202...

The root comment of this thread does purport to know when that will happen (well, pending public announcement of those two IPO dates).

How do you size a directory? Just by creating entries in it and then unlinking them?

MS-DOS didn't create that limit; the physical memory map of the 5150 did. So Microsoft (and Gates) would not have made that decision.

I've had SIP disabled for years, across many updates.

They haven't approved a change, but they have released proposals, which are tentatively to go into effect on June 8:

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/indexnews/announ...

Sure, those are some good counterexamples: both sons of professional athletes. And there are plenty of others.

On the other hand, we have: Allen Iverson, Larry Bird, Shaquille O'Neal, Carmelo Anthony, Michael Vick, Bo Jackson, Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Fernando Valenzuela, Albert Pujols, Jim Thorpe, ...

Oh, and LeBron James himself!

So my view is that people of both rich and poor upbringings have a good chance in the sports world these days, at least for those sports where the necessary gear is relatively cheap.

From your link:

> Equity is equality of outcome for all subgroups in society.