yarg

> Children who in the US would be deemed “smart” or “bright” or “gifted” are called clever in the UK.

It's interesting the way that words sometimes seem to have nuance that doesn't seem to be strictly within the definition.

For no reason I can remotely explain, I'd divide these into clever/bright and smart/gifted.

I've met several autists that I would readily describe as smart or even gifted, but I wouldn't describe as clever or bright.

(Although the distinction might just be that I'm an arsehole.)

The primary concern is trust/security.

User space limits potential security impacts, and a restricted VFS could be used to prevent clients from accessing anything that they shouldn't.

(Although I'm not even pretending to know whether or not this is a remotely good idea - my guess is that it isn't, but I'd like to know just how bad an idea it actually is.)

Couldn't you create and share a virtual file system with FUSE?

Wouldn't it be closer to say that the game was the computer?

A very simplistic and non-general purpose computer, but a computer nonetheless?

Did you RTFA?

It covers some things that are rather counterintuitive, especially if you come from a modern programming background.

Now is it complicated? No not really, I read the answer and immediately understood what was going on.

But no modern programmer would ever come up with the solution of addressing x and y positions by setting timers to wake at the times when the point in the scan-line or the scan-line in the frame was reached (although sleep-sort does exist).

If anything, the point of the post is the fact that it's very easy to understand, despite how counterintuitive it may be.

Yes?

You want to validate on the client side because it reduces latency and improves responsiveness.

You want to validate on the server side because you cannot trust the fucking client.

Fair enough, but the parameter space is incomparable (and in the case of space-time irreplicable and chaotic, making events unrepeatable).

And, unlike the game, it is impossible to hold the oracle's view (so even if freewill is illusory, it's an unbreakable illusion).

That doesn't follow.

There's nothing disingenuous or moronic about believing that physical processes might be fundamentally deterministic.

This is one of the minor themes in PKD's Ubik.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7444685-the-door-refused-to...

> Whatever you're trying to stop will already have root-kitted your systems (and quite possibly have replicated) by the time you realise that it's even beginning to become a problem.

There's a good chance that you won't know where it is - if you even did to begin with (which particular AI even went rogue?).

> Or did the AI take over the fighter jets too?

Dunno - how secure are the systems?

But it's almost certainly fucking with the GPS.

> You could only shut it down if there's a choke point accessible without electronic intervention, and you'd need to reach it without electronic intervention, and do so without communicating your intent.

You'll be dead before you reach the plug.

Have you looked at the way that ants do it?

Depending on fleet size, you'd get some useful emergent properties from a mesh-net.

I actually don't know what we're arguing, since I already misinterpreted the dude that I responded to, but there's no one else that could have done this.

No-one would've believed it possible, no-one even conceived of the notion that it was worth while to try.

And there's not another billionaire around who'd've been willing to bet the house on it.

I don't know how much of a roll he had in the designs (other than "make it pointy") but the fact remains that he's the man who built the team that somehow managed to achieve the hitherto impossible.

My biggest concern with him is that he's pushing a pace that in some cases will go beyond the point of diminishing returns, and even beyond that into the territory that invites burnout.

When you're building teams of the best minds on earth, you probably don't want to be burning through them like candles.

Someone never watched the Terminator series.

In all seriousness, if we ever get to the point where an AI needs to be shut down to avoid catastrophe, there's probably no way to turn it off.

There are digital controls for damned near everything, and security is universally disturbingly bad.

Whatever you're trying to stop will already have root-kitted your systems (and quite possibly have replicated) by the time you realise that it's even beginning to become a problem.

You could only shut it down if there's a choke point accessible without electronic intervention, and you'd need to reach it without electronic intervention, and do so without communicating your intent.

Yes, that's all highly highly improbable - but you seem to believe that you can just turn off the Genie, when he's already seen you coming and is having none of it.

Or perhaps blame Boeing and NASA, rather than the single competent organisation that's managing to hold the whole damned thing together.

> If that partitions just so happens to carry the largest object by far in you whole cluster, that’s something even consistent hashing can’t solve. It only cares for keys.

Isn't that the one of the problems solved by foreign keys?

That's cool, but when decent companies think that legitimately useful people are considering resigning they often don't fire but instead offer a raise.

No, but the ability to probabilistically detect it could be used to build useful filtering and prioritisation functions.

It could be used for all sorts of things:

    You could use it to indicate the fit between employees and companies;
    You could use it to detect lies and exaggerations in CVs;
    You could use it to estimate when employees are likely to be considering seeking new opportunities.

There's significant potential for business relevant applications.

When highly addictive drugs with rapidly diminishing efficacy are readily prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain, people should absolutely be blamed - but not the patients.

If Chinese academic research were not absolutely rife with fraud, their MoE wouldn't have stepped in with guidelines to deal with the issue.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02208-6

Unfortunately?

I feel threatened by an ethnosupremacist regime that would murder tens of millions of its own citizens.

Crazy huh?

Do they?

This is about research and papers published - but Chinese academia is amongst the most corrupt in the world, so without the technologies being utilised (or at least peer reviewed by more trustworthy people) this really doesn't mean all that much.

Honestly, if the Chinese were that far ahead they wouldn't depend on industrial espionage to the extent that they do.

The moment that hits 666, it ticks right on over to 667.

People have their beliefs; and not only does no-one want to release The Satanic License, no-one's gonna want it to remain that unlucky for long.

Weird little monkeys we are, for the amazing things we can be.

Generative AI has done to human speech analysis what atmospheric testing did to carbon dating.

I read significantly faster than people speak, everything in voice would be immediately frustrating to me.

Though I think there may be a target audience in the blind community; who could find the demi-organic nature of recorded speech more conducive to genuine conversations than their standard text-to-speech conversion software.

(Which I think there's a good chance a lot of them are using for one of their primary social networking interfaces anyway).

This is a move with swinging geopolitical implications. But the value and urgency of the reinvigoration of the American manufacturing centre cannot be overstated.

China's gonna be a bit salty though.

What I really want them building in America though is low-end AMD chips for development boards.

4-Core/8-Thread CPU, 4-Core GPU, 16 GB ram, sane IO, and however many of Xilinx's FPGAs they can put on it without overdoing it.

People would be able to make some pretty decent things with that.

If I travel one half of the distance from where I am to the finishing line an infinite number of times, I reach the finishing line but still never finish the race.

With a Hilbert curve the entire plane becomes a limit.

This doesn't seem to fly with the inductive fact that 1/2 of a power of two is always one over a power of two no matter how many times you perform the iteration.

There are a countably infinite number of rationals between any two rationals, you can even keep splitting up those rational infinitesimal gaps into countably many rationals that are infinitesimal even relative to the earlier infinitesimals.

And you still only end up with a countably infinite set of expressible locations and not the real continuum.

Either x, y, or both are guaranteed to be a number of that form for all values on the curve.

As I said, it's approximable to arbitrary degrees of accuracy.

So it quickly turns into a question of perfect tools and other things that don't actually exist.

Somewhat pedantically, if it were archs and lines, I would consider it differently - they are hypothetical constructs and subject to hypothetical boundlessness.

But a straightedge and compass are not imaginary things; they are things of the material world and they are subject to material limitations.

Even one million is nowhere close to infinity, but the sum from x = one to one-million of 1/8^x is so stupidly close to 1/7 that you're most likely getting your toolkit delivered by the Archangel Gabriel himself.

And in less that ten minutes I could write that entire number to file.