I'm pretty sure that this was triggered by Rich Felker (musl) telling her to go away last week. She's finally asked a search engine for her legacy; previously, on Awful, we discussed the degree to which she's done this to herself by loudly espousing corporate fascism.
corbin
joined 2 years ago
Well, that might be the first package that I have to locally pin to a pre-slop commit. Thanks for the heads-up. I've never bothered to implement rsync myself even though the algorithm is documented; maybe this will be the push I need.
Professional money-managers tell themselves that they take this money to make good decisions, but there is no evidence that they are any better at managing money than people in general, and for every manager with ten million dollars who does better than average, these is a manager with ten million dollars who does worse.
Ask your bank. Well, not literally a for-profit bank, but your credit union or other community-owned banking groups will usually employ a team of financial advisors who advise the local whales, big depositors, and small businesses. The fee can be as high as 2%/yr but it's usually going to be closer to the standard 1%/yr. These advisors will be better-aligned than an independent consultant, so they'll give you better advice for around the same price.
I hear that it is slightly cheaper than a Google search from a decade ago. There are better uses of your time.
A prominent cloud engineer had a sizeable subthread where they were skeptical about the entire idea of Quality as something that humans can discern and rank. Through what I presume was a nat 20, I threw a philosophy book at them and they appear to have responded by deleting the worst of their comments, particularly the ones where he admits to quoting chatbots, and deactivating their account. This may be the first time that quoting Pirsig has won an argument, TBH.
This was after a week's vacation caused by a thread that is still too hot to deeplink, where I had multiple comments removed by mods and still won the argument. I am currently once again the second-most-flagged user with like 25 flags in the last month. "The things I do for love."
I hope that you've gotten to see a compassionate side of our community which is usually obscured by our existential requirement to critique rationalism. I would like to see an end to abuse and cults, and I worry that I'm not working enough towards that goal. Without asking you to animate any particular grievance, what more would you see us do? In particular, what inaction of ours frustrates you?
I could be charitable enough to imagine a conversation on Discord where one mod posts "heres the log, ngl he looks pretty bigoted, i already pre emptively banned them", next mod posts "lol ran it through deepseek for funsies and got <clipboard.png>", and finally somebody says "lmao gettin smarter erry day, verra nice, big thanks to big brother sponsor OpenAI™", to which there are many Borat stickers and thumbs-up. I can't be charitable enough to ignore their own wiki:
Divisions by zero is a lemmy instance hosted under the dbzer0 domain and is a founding member of the FAF. It is run by Anarchists but is not exclusionary to the ideology. It promotes libertarian socialist ideals, is against copyrights and pro-non-corporate GenAI technology. It is neurodivergence-friendly.
Wrong fucking dog-whistle, dudes. If you want to communicate that you're open to responsible self-hosted machine learning which doesn't simulate humans, then say that. As read, this sounds like they enjoy using llama.cpp at home, and the median friend in my orbit who is doing llama.cpp at home is suffering light chatbot psychoses already. Honestly, it's a little cringe that they haven't declared a ~~Neo-Leninist~~ Anarchist Butlerian Jihad By Zero instead.
Yud takes $10k to debate a random bro. The bro claims to work at an AI lab. The moderator is an acolyte of Yud. Everybody sucks here and I could not stop laughing.
A Twitterer tweets a challenging game-theory question:
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
The Twitter poll came out 58% blue and right-wing folks are screeching. Here is a bad take. The orange site has a thread where people are rephrasing the prompt in order to make it sound way worse, like giving everybody a gun and then magically making the guns not discharge.
I find it remarkable that not a single dipshit has correctly analyzed the problem. Suppose you are one of Arrow's dictators: your vote tips the scales regardless of which way you go. So, everybody else already voted and they are precisely 50% blue. Either you can vote blue and save everybody or vote red and kill 50% of voters. From that perspective, the pro-red folks are homicidally selfish.
Bonus sneer: since HN couldn't rephrase the problem without magic, let me have a chance. Consider: everybody has some seed food and some rainwater in a barrel. If 50% of people elect to plant their seeds and pool their rainwater in a reservoir then everybody survives; otherwise, only those who selfishly eat their own seed and drink their rainwater will survive. This is a basic referendum on whether we can work together to reduce economic costs and the supposedly-economically-minded conservatives are demonstrating that they would rather be hateful than thrifty.
We literally have a generic speedup for any search. On one hand, details of Grover's algorithm suggest that NP isn't contained in BQP, so we won't be solving the entirety of maths with it. On the other hand, literally any decidable mathematical question for which you would have had to search for years for a witness, Grover can search for in days, as long as you have enough qubits. I don't claim that this is attractive to the typical consumer, but there will be supercomputing customers who are interested.
Who is "they", specifically? Neither of you actually want to talk about who's in this space for some reason. It's IBM and Google. It's incumbents that have been engineering for about two decades. It's the maturation of a half-century-old research programme. Your problem isn't with quantum computers, it's with Silicon Valley and the funding model and the revolving door at Stanford, and there's no amount of quantum research you can cancel which will cause Silicon Valley to stop existing. This site is awful.systems, not awful.tech.
BTW the top reply right now starts with "even if quantum computing isn't snake oil..." No evidence. For some reason y'all think that it's more important to be emotional and memetic than to understand the topic at hand, and it has a predictable effect on our discourse, turning thoughtful regular posters into reactionaries. What are you going to do when bullshitters start claiming that quantum computers can do anything, that they do multiple things at once, that they traverse infinite dimensions, that they can terraform the planet and bring enlightenment? You're gonna repeat paragraph 3 of 5 above, the one that starts, "it is true that we know only two useful algorithms for quantum computers," because that's where the facts start.
Also, I think that you don't understand my ultimate goal. I'm trying to push the most promising writer on the site into doing more research and thinking more deeply about history. Quantum mechanics happens to be a crank-filled field and that has caused many of y'all to write as if all quantum research is crankery. They write, "alleged encryption-breaking abilities," and you're irritated that I'm "ranting" because "extremely little of this has anything to do with a technology," while I'm irritated precisely because you think that this is a technology-neutral position and not literally part of why the TLS suite has to be upgraded occasionally.
Which tech stocks? Google ($GOOG, $GOOGL) is up over 5% YTD; Netflix ($NFLX) is up over 30% YTD! Your link mentions Palantir and ARM, but I don't see any signs of their respective businesses (selling database software to authoritarians, selling microchip designs) slacking off. I think that it's more useful to think of the current AI summer as driven by OpenAI and nVidia specifically. Note that nVidia ($NVDA) is up 30% YTD too. The bubble is still inflating and is not yet bursting; the pop will be much quicker than you expect.
I think that you ought to figure out whether you're a quantum-computing denier. Folks have been saying that quantum computing is impossible since the 70s, implausible since the 80s, lacking applications since the 90s, too energy-intensive since the 2000s, and requiring too many exotic materials since the 2010s. This decade, it's not clear what the complaint is. I'm not sure what you're imagining in terms of real-life intrusion, but IBM has been selling access to their quantum computers and simulators for several years now and I don't think that you've substantiated any evidence of harms.
(An anti-IBM argument will not work due to a very specific analogy: the reason that we have ubiquitous Linux today is because IBM was its biggest corporate booster, fighting an important series of court cases and plastering pro-Linux advertisements which vaguely argued that Linux was the buzzword of the future. IBM spray-painted "Peace, Love, Linux" graffiti on San Francisco sidewalks in 2001.)
It is true that we know only two useful algorithms for quantum computers. One is a generic speedup for any search and the other is a prime-factoring algorithm that happens to break certain specific encryption algorithms. Given that it is an open question whether cryptography works in the first place, though, we don't have any better plan than to avoid those broken algorithms. The entirety of post-quantum cryptography is about moving away from those specific algorithms which are broken, not about using quantum computers to perform encryption. Fortunately, the post-quantum movement has been active ever since Shor's algorithm was discovered, beginning work in the late 90s, and the main obstacle has been our inability to discover provably-good cryptographic primitives. It is crucial to understand that we cryptographers know that progress in maths and engineering will obsolete our algorithms; we know that the Internet only stays secure because people update their computers every few decades.
I'm not asking you to understand P vs NP vs BQP. I'm not asking you to know KS, PBR, Hardy's or Holevo's theorems, or even Bell's theorem. You didn't make any technical claims other than the common-yet-sneerable skepticism of Shor's algorithm, easily cured by a short video by e.g. minutephysics or Veritasium. But I am asking you to be aware of the history before making historical claims.
(Also, if any motherfucker starts repeating 't Hooft anti-quantum arguments then they're going to get the book thrown at them.)
view more: next ›
It's been a while since we've heard anything related to
books3. Copyright attorney Leonard French has a news update (video) on Nazemian et al v. nVidia. nVidia requested that any mention of Bittorrent be removed; really, they just asked for one sentence to be removed, but the judge thought that it was like "asking to strike paintbrush allegations from a case about dolphin paintings" (sic; I don't have the transcript) and refused. The theory is that nVidia could have argued that they were not contributory infringers and then appealed to Cox v. Sony, where Cox said that it's not their fault that some of their customers are pirates. However, it seems like any sort of Cox appeal is not possible here because the judge recognizes that Bittorrent isn't a dumb network.If you're anti-copyright like me: Oh look, Cox wasn't a big sweeping get-out-of-trouble card for non-ISPs. I still don't think judges actually understand networks, but this is definitely better than a lack of understanding. If you're one of the pro-copyright-because-anti-AI sickos: nVidia took a big loss here. This was their only shot at keeping their usage of
books3, Anna's Archive, and other shadow libraries out of court. Like Anthropic before them in Bartz v. Anthropic, they may have to come to the judge with an offering of a settlement paying a few hundred USD/author to each member of the class. This sucks for the popular authors but might be more cash in hand than the long tail would otherwise receive in royalties.