Guvante

6 ms·

61.
by Guvante 5mo ago
> LLM's now can capture intent. Humans cannot capture intent so how can AI? It is well established that understanding what someone meant by what they said is not a generally solvable problem, akin to the three body problem. Note of
62.
by Guvante 5mo ago
Which is why they focus on getting a fan out before adding a second color
63.
by Guvante 5mo ago
Noctua fans have a distinct look, you could say the same about black, if you want to black them out just get a case that hides them since that would look the same.
64.
by Guvante 5mo ago
Exploits of a local machine with hardware access are a dime a dozen. For most things everyone assumes if you can run arbitrary code you already have total effective control. That is why the gold standard is RCE remote code execution not roo
65.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Isn't breaking the sandbox the hard part? RCE is effectively "can run code" which is just JavaScript if you ignore the sandbox.
66.
by Guvante 6mo ago
You are effectively claiming that either: AI created unprompted the eloquent speech it uses or that AI stole the unpopular style of eloquent speech from people who didn't know what they were talking about. Neither of which is true beca
67.
by Guvante 6mo ago
"They have a long history of long rants attacking people and projects" in response to a long post... You are very much saying that OP is an attack post. Or at least implying the point that it is tonally dissonant to claim otherwis
68.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Revisionist at best. Sure some people could write well but didn't have a clue but they failed to maintain interest since once you realized the author was no good you bounced once you saw their styled blog. Now they don't care as t
69.
by Guvante 6mo ago
I hate it because typically that style of writing was when someone cared about what they were writing. While it wasn't a great signal it was a decent one since no one bothered with garbage posts to phrase it nicely like that. Now any o
70.
by Guvante 6mo ago
"Evil" merged are only evil if your tooling skips over merge commits as "unimportant" which is a common tactic to try and prune some of the crazy trees you get when hundreds of people are making merge commits into a repo
71.
by Guvante 6mo ago
That makes sense you could only move locks that are "after" all taken locks
72.
by Guvante 6mo ago
That is kind of the point of Pijul, first class support for "how do I combine these" which git mostly discards as unimportant. But for a lot of work at scale (or people) mixing bits is important.
73.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Don't address introduce ambiguous locking order across attempts? While not obviously problematic, that seems weird enough you would need to validate that it is explicitly safe.
74.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Aren't we talking about now? No one is saying we should have activated IPv6 in its first iteration.
75.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Stabilizing C as the language of the operating system and keeping it simple isn't without benefits. But I do think the frustration that C++ can no longer be a super set of C is overblown by C++.
76.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Feature complete is a pretty hard goal to reach. It sounds like "added all the features" but is closer to "bug compatible across compilers" (not saying there are bugs just that recent versions have removed a lot of wiggl
77.
by Guvante 6mo ago
You already have a public IP address the only difference is if you have a rotating IP address which is orthogonal to IPv6. The only difference is most ISPs rotate IPv4 but not IPv6. Heck IPv6 allows more rotation of IPs since it has larger
78.
by Guvante 6mo ago
NAT only matters in so far as you don't technically need a firewall to block incoming traffic since if it fails a NAT lookup you know to drop the traffic. But from a security standpoint you can just do the same tracking for the same re
79.
by Guvante 6mo ago
Why should C++ stop improving? Other languages don't need C++ to die to beat it.
80.
by Guvante 7mo ago
If investors expect Microsoft profitability that means their stock is worth 1/6th today what it will be in 5 years. That is a cost of capital estimate of 40%. Which points to investors not believing the company will be that profitable.
81.
by Guvante 7mo ago
That isn't lowering prices at all, it is raising prices.
82.
by Guvante 7mo ago
Because we don't need to worry about uptime, customer satisfaction, or data integrity.
83.
by Guvante 8mo ago
If you assume AGI that is better than humans for effectively free of course it seems better. But your assumptions are based on an idealized thing unrelated to anything that is shown. No one is paying your wage for AI, full stop, you transit
84.
by Guvante 8mo ago
I don't believe any AI model has admitted to having access to private GitHub repos unless you count instances where a business explicitly gives access related to their own users things.
85.
by Guvante 8mo ago
I was responding to "if software patents are bad why is AI stealing software also bad"
86.
by Guvante 8mo ago
Ah yes people were making emulators because emulators weren't a solved problem... That isn't why people made emulators. It is because it is an easy to solve problem that is tricky to get right and provides as much testable space a
87.
by Guvante 8mo ago
Actually you might need to depending on how similar your implementation is. Copyright law here is quite nuanced. See the Google vs Oracle case about Java.
88.
by Guvante 8mo ago
No one knows until a law about it is written. You could postulate based on judicial rulings but unless those are binding you are effectively hypothesizing.
89.
by Guvante 8mo ago
People rarely post proprietary code to GitHub. Most of it is open licenses that generally only require attribution. Some use a copy left license. Software patents are not copyright in anyway they are a completely different thing. So this is
90.
by Guvante 8mo ago
Honestly if the tooling were better at keeping upstream on the left I wouldn't mind as much but IIRC `git pull` puts your branch on the left which means walking history requires analysing each merge commit to figure out where history a

More ›