dataflow

14 ms·

331.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> There are financial laws that banks must comply with and one of them require banks to share information with the Central Bank about potential fraudulent transactions. Having a payment system using the CB's infrastructure doesn&#x2
332.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> The central bank controls what payments are permitted by what laws exist, not some risk management system that has decided that your legal purchase is too risky or some foreign state has applied sanctions against you. That sounds worse
333.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> Notice though "ignoring the situation" thru "documented manner characteristic of the environment". I noticed that. Those are 100% consistent & implied by the parts of the standard I quoted that you are ignoring,
334.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> but that the consequence of this should be somewhat bounded or as expected for the target machine. Aren't "unpredictable results" and "no requirements" contrary to the idea that the behavior would be "some
335.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> As much as I’d like to share in the skepticism, the very beginning of the article states it very plainly — this is a step function. That's great and all, but nobody was being skeptical or asking anything about whether Mythos is or
336.
by dataflow 4mo ago
That's great and all but how severe were the most severe vulnerabilities found? I imagine they don't want to talk about it, but that's really the most interesting and important bit.
337.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> The incentives for elites to stay loyal have been studied extensively, but the rank and file have remained something of a black box. In the absence of real data, researchers have tended to assume that they cooperate because of ideologi
338.
by dataflow 4mo ago
I definitely need to edit files that are hundreds of thousands of lines once in a while. Nothing wrong with it, I think you're just assuming it's source code or such when it isn't. It's often data manipulation (CSV, JSON
339.
by dataflow 4mo ago
> I recently launched a text editor for iOS that uses TextKit 2 and is highly performant with files of 5,000 lines (I tested with Moby Dick from Project Gutenberg) I'm so confused by this comment. 5,000 lines is an absolutely minus
340.
by dataflow 4mo ago
They claim they have TPM + PIN exploit too, though how credible it is remains to be seen. https://deadeclipse666.blogspot.com/2026/05/were-doing-silen...
341.
The German town where people print their own money [video](youtube.com)
2 points by dataflow 4mo ago|0 comments
342.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> My countrymen are shockingly dumb. Presented with something rational like 24-hour time 24-hour time is terrible. An analog clock doesn't have that written on it...
343.
by dataflow 5mo ago
My question is, if they did decide to use AI someday, would they remember to update README.md in the same commit? I would probably forget.
344.
by dataflow 5mo ago
Isn't it illegal in the entire US? The question doesn't seem to be whether you can obtain it legally, but how many laws you'd rather break in the process, and how much trace you'd like to leave behind. I imagine the ille
345.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> I have written academic papers myself So have I. That doesn't place me on some pedestal. > A one-year ban is not a lifetime ban. Nobody said it was. Nobody was even objecting to it. Please (re-?)read past the first 8 words of [
346.
by dataflow 5mo ago
Poe's law really is a force to be reckoned with.
347.
by dataflow 5mo ago
Thanks for this.
348.
by dataflow 5mo ago
What? Then how long are they disqualifying them from submitting prior to acceptance, if not lifetime? It certainly doesn't say 1 year or something.
349.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> Feels like that should disqualify you from participation for a bit. Intent or no intent. Exactly! For a bit ! Yet this is not for a bit! This is a lifetime disqualification , and that's been my entire grip the whole time! Is
350.
by dataflow 5mo ago
That was literally just a typo, I was walking and messed up while typing. Pretend I wrote "set behind." It makes no difference to my point and I fully stand behind the comment with that correction. If all you're genuinely wor
351.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> You seem incredibly upset you can't get away with fraud and that people are calling it fraud. Yeah, that's exactly what I've been upset about. You really nailed it!
352.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> But being incentivised to check your co-author's work before submission isn't a bad thing. Nobody was arguing against this.
353.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> And its only 1 year No , it emphatically is not just a year! It's perpetual, and that's literally been my entire point this whole time. If it was just one year I would've had no complaints - and I made that clear fr
354.
by dataflow 5mo ago
No. One single hallucinated citation on a document with you as an author is not evidence of your reckless disregard for anything. These exaggerations are crazy and you would absolutely deny such accusations if you missed your co-author&
355.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> It is fraud. No, it is emphatically not. Fraud requires intent to deceive. > A one year ban is not permanent. ...what text are you reading? Nobody was calling the one-year ban permanent, or even against it. I was literally in fav
356.
by dataflow 5mo ago
No it is not. Seriously. All you need for this to happen is for your lab partner to ask AI to add a missing citation that they are already familiar with at the last minute before a midnight submission deadline, and for the AI to hallucinate
357.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> Your being set behind is less important than the fact that your publishing is setting everyone else behind One hallucinated citation does not in any way imply anyone is being left behind. All it means nobody is checked that particular
358.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> It's not the kind of mistake that is possible unless you're engaging in fraud anyway. Seriously? You can't fathom an honest researcher asking for AI to find a citation they know exists, and the AI inserting or modifying
359.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> This is incredibly good for science. I disagree. It's just one darn hallucinated citation for heaven's sake, not fraud or something. It doesn't account for the substance or quality of their work at all. A one-year ban se
360.
by dataflow 5mo ago
> Open source is vital , the others are too for normal people except for the autists who downvote on a technicality. Was there really no better way to say you disagree than insulting everyone who disagreed with you?

More ›