bawolff

6 ms·

61.
by bawolff 28d ago
out of curiosity, would something like this hurt a human? I assume the sound waves must be pretty powerful to put out a fire.
62.
by bawolff 29d ago
We are getting a bit nit picky here, but formally it has all sorts of de jure powers (via the security council), just de facto not really. But from a practical perspective you are mostly right, although i think its important not to underest
63.
by bawolff 29d ago
Well, a bunch of people on the world stage thought it would score good political points (and/or they thought opposing it would make them look bad with no upside because its a non binding vote). That doesn't mean the people who mak
64.
by bawolff 29d ago
> The UN isn’t a supranational organization fixing conflicts. The UN's explicit purpose is to try and prevent conflict. One of the requirements to join is to renounce the right to use force in international relations except in self-
65.
by bawolff 29d ago
I feel like people are making more of a fuss about this then it is. The UNGA isn't a body that controls what maps its member states use. They can make the recommendation of course, but it has yet to be seen if anyone follows it.
66.
by bawolff 29d ago
Screens are still 2D objects requiring projections.
67.
by bawolff 29d ago
UNGA votes are non binding symbolic grandstanding. This vote does not mean the world agreed to it. its more like the world agreed to think about it. Will countries actually change their map projections? That has yet to be seen. Maybe they w
68.
by bawolff 29d ago
The justice system relies on evidence not vibes.
69.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Do we even export any dairy to the US? I'd assume most of the auto stuff is parts not complete product, so banning that will probably just make everything more expensive for everyone.
70.
by bawolff 1mo ago
> OpenAI's LLMs are not humans Neither are guns. Which is why we punish the person shooting the gun and not the gun. Industrial equipment, which is how i would classify LLMs, hurting people is nothing new. The relevant questions are
71.
by bawolff 1mo ago
No, people who believe things without evidence because it fits their personal narrative are consiracy theorists. The thing that makes someone not a conspiracy theorist is evidence.
72.
by bawolff 1mo ago
I wonder what is required for it to cross the line into criminal blackmail.
73.
by bawolff 1mo ago
> OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic well that sounds like an a
74.
by bawolff 1mo ago
If it was run by the CIA or russian intelligence, they wouldn't have burned their asset with petty grudges.
75.
by bawolff 1mo ago
> These types of schemes ring very poorly in my head for charity. These types of schemes are so common as to basically be universal. You'd probably be hard pressed to find a major charity that hasn't participated in something l
76.
by bawolff 1mo ago
> I still don't get how copying copyrighted content to your own website and then asking for donations can be a legal business model Because copyright isn't black and white like that. Its a lot more complicated. Its likely a lot
77.
by bawolff 1mo ago
i think the biggest tell is that LLMs talk like a politician. They blather on while beating around the bush. It takes 5 paragraphs to convey one sentence of information. I dont care about llm use on any ideological grounds, or believe its a
78.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Just like kings, anyone who has to proclaim their comment is a joke, has not made a true joke.
79.
by bawolff 1mo ago
malvertising is really a method of delivering exploits, but there is no reason to think its relavent to this situation. For non technical users, scam adverts are probably the biggest threat. So i agree ubo is an important security technolog
80.
by bawolff 1mo ago
well one someone posts on an article about an exploit in chrome saying that the exploit is a reason to switch, i think its fair to say its not about "not reward[ing] unethical behaviour"
81.
by bawolff 1mo ago
And ActiveX!
82.
by bawolff 1mo ago
That's another good example. Personally i was thinking of lower income people voting for trump because they thought he would improve their plight.
83.
by bawolff 1mo ago
True, but if that happened, i think that would be the headline, not RSA-260 was factorized.
84.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Money is not the only coin to pay someone in.
85.
by bawolff 1mo ago
People who feel lost and disaffected would rather see the whole thing burn down than continue with the status quo even if it is objectively worse for them. And its clearly been building for a while. Trump and Obama are about as opposite as
86.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Seems unlikely given claude would not really be effective for this type of problem.
87.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Despite what people are saying here, chrome has a really excellent track record. Nobody is perfect. Switching just because chrome got exploited one time will likely result in you switching to something worse. If you're paranoid, disabl
88.
by bawolff 1mo ago
> JavaScript in the browser has no way to even express ... "list the contents of `C:\Users\Documents` and upload all of the files" this is besides the point, but javascript has the file system api. anyways to your broad point,
89.
by bawolff 1mo ago
In fairness, in the early 2000s they were probably right. Early browser security model was a bit of a mess. The fact that this article is even talked about is a sign of how much better things are.
90.
by bawolff 1mo ago
Well, someone did decide to tell google about this in exchange for a thousand dollars (albeit unclear how much the money was the motivator). Doesn't that mean the market did decide in google's favour?

More ›