Experts from 2005 I guess, because that’s the last time I heard about bots not being able to mimic human-like interactions.
Everything you’re talking about is trivial to automate with playwright.
2,015 karma · joined February 13, 2018
Everything you’re talking about is trivial to automate with playwright.
Measuring bot activity became harder after the API changes (I wonder why!), but there’s been some attempts at finding ways to estimate bot activity. All those measures are compatible with increases in bot activity, and incompatible with bot decline.
The only reason Twitter has more active users is that it removed some of the protections for bots, in particular broad filtering coming from certain country involved in a war.
You don’t think Musk is any close to the Oceangate guy? Let’s review some interesting decisions by his companies then:
- Musk mucking around with the blue checks and the bot filters in Twitter skyrocketed the amount of scams in the platform.
- Tesla uses very strict NDAs and settlement to silence the reporting of accidents
- The infamous electric door handle that locks up Teslas when power goes out was an obvious point of failure, it was ignored, people died, and now several countries have legislation against it
- Reportedly Musk had safety lines and other safety features in the factories removed for serious reasons like “not liking yellow”
- Any understanding of how to parse public insurance data will show you Tesla’s have accident rates that are multiples of other brands
- The Starship, a vessel that is intended for human transport, has no safe abort system, no way to fit one in its current state, and no plans to modify that.
Just a reminder that even a very SpaceX-friendly count (in which flights that did not attempt to land are considered “good”) puts the current reliability rate at <40%.
As a naive boundary, for clearing the 97.5% predicted crew survival, SpaceX would need to fly in the order of 300 good Starship launches.
Those are just of the top of my head.
Isaacson’s “biographies” are glorified puff pieces. Musk is as unrecognizable in his as Jobs was in his.
Both Tesla and SpaceX had teams keeping Musk busy on bs just so that the engineering teams could do their work.
The second he took control, we got the cybertruck and the starship, the worse products both companies ever built (or attempted, in the case of the starship).
> Musk relentlessly challenges the existence of every part
This sounds insightful until you find yourself debating with the CEO for the eleventh time about how his high-school understanding of the physics involved breaks down in a particular case.
Musk is very lucky to be moving such quantities of money that his companies are big enough to protect themselves from him, if you ever wonder how Musk would fare on a tight budget, look no further than the Oceangate.
It’s certainly an achievement of SpaceX engineering what they can do despite his constant meddling.
The closest I’ve gotten is using a raspberry pi in the workbench, but for some weird devices that’s sometimes not good enough.
Some years ago a case became quite famous in Spain. Someone wanted to turn a winery into a eco-tourism boutique hotel with a winery tour and experience. Should be simple in theory, in practice they were waiting for authorization to open for more than 4 years.
I’ve been involved with startups and small businesses for more than a decade, and I haven’t still heard of any of them doing things 100% by the book, because it’s just impossible.
People just start and hope the taxman doesn’t come.
30% tree cover looks very different depending on the trees your municipality chooses.
For example, Barcelona covers everything with a variety of Platanus, which is easier to keep than other trees, but it’s quite dirty and produces A LOT of pollen. For me, that I’m allergic to it, it just makes the city unavailable for 2-4 weeks every year.
Having smaller plants, with more variety also feels much better than just sprinkling the right amount of massive trees with equal spacing. I’m pretty convinced part of the “we need more green” feeling people get is actually “I need something in my environment to not look like a grid”.
For most businesses, you’re not the target audience of your website, your potential customers are.
ARM is a much more mature platform, and the licensing scheme helps somewhat to keep really good physical implementations of the cores, since some advances get “distributed” through ARM itself.
Compute capabilities and power efficiency are very tied to physical implementations, which for the best part is happening behind closed doors.
- Early (ESP8622) MCUs had weak security, implementation flaws, and a host of issues that meant an attacker could hijack and maintain control of devices via OTA updates.
- Their chosen way to implement these systems makes them more vulnerable. They explicitly reduce hardware footprint by moving functionality from hardware to software.
- More recently there was some controversy about hidden commands in the BT chain, which were claimed to be debug functionality. Even if you take them at their word, that speaks volumes about their practices and procedures.
That’s the main problem with these kinds of backdoors, you can never really prove they exist because there’s reasonable alternative explanations since bugs do happen.
What I can tell you is that every single company I’ve worked which took security seriously (medical implants, critical safety industry) not only banned their use on our designs, they banned the presence of ESP32 based devices on our networks.
I’d say it’s true, but the LLMs and humans don’t have the exact same definition of what “obscure” is.
Karel is almost a subset of Pascal with some keyword swaps. And there’s a LOT of Pascal (and similar languages) around.
From the PoV of a statistical based tool like an LLM, Karel is just another flavor of a very popular structure.
What would have you done when the Bitcoin fork happened 50/50? Would you have gone int ICOs? Which ones? Etc…
There’s simply too many “new things”, so by trying to get exposure to them you’ll be massively in the red.
Let’s say you get into 1000 “new things”, and you strike it lucky and hit BTC. You’d had to buy BTC in early 2013, hold it over the whole period and sold at the historical maximum for you to be at break even.
If instead of buying 1000 “new things”, you’ve put your money into the S&P you’d be at +250% by the same time.
As a freelancer I do a bit of everything, and I’ve seen places where LLM breezes through and gets me what I want quickly, and times where using an LLM was a complete waste of time.
If this doesn’t get fixed, I’m going to have to rethink a lot of my digital life, including my company’s.
That’s very market and country specific. Spain makes more than 1k tweaks to it’s food regulations each year, which would kill lots of restaurants if they were to be in compliance.
The result is that everyone tries to make as much money as they can and build a “inspection fund”, because you’re guaranteed to get a fine if inspected.
Also, a lot of countries do have IDs...
Consumer rights aren’t features, and they’re very intentionally written to not be.
> "Force of the state making sideloading mandatory is bad" > ...Except we have antitrust laws?
Then sue them over those.
> Listen, either it's the case that "sideloading" is a threat to normies or it's not. Are normies your 1% or 99% of users? I thought according to you 99% of users won't sideload.
I meant that 99% of users aren’t afraid by the term “sideloading”. That you’re not using something doesn’t mean you’re afraid of it, it just means you don’t want it.
> you're right, why not let corporations be corporations and do anti-consumer things, they'll be very good to us (while they lobby the state).
Because corporations tend to die when they do anti-consumer things, but governments keep doing anti-citizen things without much trouble.
Nowadays it’s not even that hard to build your own phone, but it’s not going to be a slick smartphone for sure
Features aren’t rights, if you want a phone that let’s you run whatever you want, buy one or make it yourself.
What you’re trying is to use the force of the state to make mandatory a feature that not only 99% users won’t use, it vastly increases the attack surface for most of them, specially the most vulnerable.
If anyone were trying to create a word that gives a “deviant” feel, they wouldn’t use “sideload”, and most people haven’t even heard the term. There’s a world of difference between words like “pirate”, “crack”, “hack” and “sideload”.
If anything I’d say it’s too nice of a term, since it easily hides for normies the fact that what you’re doing is loading untrusted code, and it’s your responsibility to audit it’s origin or contents (something even lot’s of devs don’t do).
If you want to reverse engineer your devices, all the power to you, but you don’t get to decide how others people’s devices work.
Does it really matter? There’s always a first country to do anything.
It makes no sense actual exposure to radiation is increasing because of the lack of nuclear plants…
Or we could treat nuclear rationally and stop increasing the price three orders of magnitude past diminishing returns..
Also, you can’t converge to a diverging number, for Rust to get close to C++’s level of complexity, the C++ WG would have to stop with their garbage.
My only point is that if you get published in a journal, at least two people have seen it.
Are you nuts?
X-ray inspection is not that rare, there’s even small assembly houses here (Spain) that can do xray automated inspection.
This has been standard for years to the point I’ve been sent forms for assembly houses RFQ where there are checkboxes for xray inspection, and I haven’t handled a serious assembly development in ~4 years.
What’s new and they’re advertising here is CT, which is another level.
Peer review used to mean “some peers have reviewed it”, mainly the editors, who pushed for correctness and novelty. There was a clear difference between publishing and making a paper public. It never meant “it’s right”, but it meant “it has passed basic quality control and it’s worth your time to read it”.
Modern day academics push people to fragment into ever smaller niches, meaning most editors are nowadays completely out of their depth when evaluating papers, so now we keep referring to editor approval as “peer review” and try to diminish the public perception that comes with it.
The only thing you need is leverage, and yes, rank-and-file are not going to have a lot of leverage at a FAANG.
You can’t negotiate if you’re not willing to let the job go through.