notabot

If the details aren't specific to your server, could you post the body of the message? They might not stop there, and I'd like to know what's going on before they hit my server.

Do we actuall remember Ea-Nasir, or do we just recall a modern meme about one aspect of his life?

Right, that's it, we're removing the network and power connections too.

To be fair, I've had my share of foul ups on remote servers too, but I have noone to complain to but myself about that.

I'd be interested to see if this upside down printing technique would work with other filaments as it sounds like it could be the answer for printing overhangs on smaller models at least. I can see bigger models coming unstuck from the bed being a major downside though.

He'd obviously read up on 17th century witchcraft. It is well known that you may fascinate a woman by giving her a piece of cheese.

01000001 00100000 01110011 01110100 01100101 01100001 01100100 01111001 00100000 01101000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100111 01101110 01100101 01110100 01101001 01110011 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101110 01100101 01100101 01100100 01101100 01100101 00101110

I mean, if you're not using LFS, are you really using linux at all?

Walked across a room and pulled a muscle in my shoulder. It was painful enough that I could barely lift it for a week or so.

To be fair, it would slightly reduce the xhance of the user really messing it up. If they remove the screen too we might finally have a user-proof computer. No more "I've forgotten my password", no more "I put the internet in the trash can and now I can't find it", and no more "I didn't do anything (they absolutely did) and now it doesn't work, this must be your fault. (As the local 'techie' it's not my fault, but it probably is my problem). Fix it!! (sigh...)"

There are certainly better ways, but I suspect this way is cheaper as the only need to stock one connector type.

My kids have a pile of cardboard screws that they use to turn boxes into all sorts of things; rockets, forts, cars and you could probably make organizers, shelves and the like too. The screws grip the cardboard surprisingly well, and it's easy to make even quite large structures robust.

Could you let me know what sort of models you're using? Everything I've tried has basically been so bad it was quicker and more reliable to to the job myself. Most of the models can barely write boilerplate code accurately and securely, let alone anything even moderately complex.

I've tried to get them to analyse code too, and that's hit and miss at best, even with small programs. I'd have no faith at all that they could handle anything larger; the answers they give would be confident and wrong, which is easy to spot with something small, but much harder to catch with a large, multi process system spread over a network. It's hard enough for humans, who have actual context, understanding and domain knowledge, to do it well, and I've, personally, not seen any evidence that an LLM (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to) could do anywhere near as well. I don't doubt that they flag some issues, but without a comprehensive, human, review of the system architecture, implementation and code, you can't be sure what they've missed, and if you're going to do that anyway, you've done the job yourself!

Having said that, I've no doubt that things will improve, programming languages have well defined syntaxes and so they should be some of the easiest types of text for an LLM to parse and build a context from. If that can be combined with enough domain knowledge, a description of the deployment environment and a model that's actually trained for and tuned for code analysis and security auditing, it might be possible to get similar results to humans.