not2b

6 ms·

61.
by not2b 2y ago
Not sure who you are quoting here, I never said "embarrassing". I'm sure that those "nerds" made adjustments based on the failures. That's all I was asking for.
62.
by not2b 2y ago
They shouldn't just cancel, but with the same kind of failure twice in a row it seems they should require correcting the tipping-over issue before trying a third time.
63.
by not2b 2y ago
I was impressed with how tight the known bounds are. For length 30, the upper bound is 1.0000397 times the lower bound. For 40 the ratio is 1.0000164 and it quickly approaches 1.
64.
by not2b 2y ago
Yes, code review can catch these things. But code review for more complex issues works better when the submitter can walk the reviewers through the design and explain the details (sometimes the reviewers will catch a flaw in the submitter&#
65.
by not2b 2y ago
If the hallucinated code doesn't compile (or in an interpreted language, immediately throws exceptions), then yes, that isn't risky because that code won't be used. I'm more concerned about code that appears to work for
66.
by not2b 2y ago
I'm not a Ruster, I've spent my career writing a ton of C++. But I'm interested in Rust as an alternative because it doesn't need GC. But in this case, it's not just the memory safety I'm interested in, it&#x27
67.
by not2b 2y ago
Consider the split_at_mut function. It takes one mutable slice, and returns two mutable slices by chopping at a caller-specified point. It's in the standard library. The operation is completely safe, as after the call the original muta
68.
by not2b 2y ago
There are other ways to exploit formal verification. For example, you may be able to formally prove that the unoptimized version of your program has the same behavior as the optimized version, subject to specified constraints. This can assu
69.
by not2b 2y ago
That one, though, is because we are running into physical limits: if we want to build things out of atoms, we can't make features that are half an atom thick. Even above that scale, physical effects that used to be ignorable, like quan
70.
by not2b 2y ago
Sometimes the tool doesn't have to know he's a tool. The Russians use the term "useful idiot". They've created the back doors, I'm sure that the Russians and the Chinese are now in the systems the DOGE people b
71.
by not2b 2y ago
If they'd only been downloading data that would be bad enough, but they've been modifying code as well, code that they don't understand. It's the biggest security disaster in recent history (perhaps Kim Philby giving eve
72.
by not2b 2y ago
Yes, but a university or other institution will often also require IRB review in additional cases, because maybe they don't want to let researchers accidentally cause brain damage just because a billionaire rather than a government is
73.
by not2b 2y ago
"The main thing holding back wider adoption is a lack of system interfaces. File access, networking, etc. But it's just a matter of time before these features get integrated." But then you've got to figure out and preven
74.
by not2b 2y ago
The shrew had to assume you were going to eat it, and it did what it needed to do to escape.
75.
by not2b 2y ago
YouTube doesn't even bother with scene cut detection; they'll insert ads mid-sentence. A lot.
76.
by not2b 2y ago
It appears that the intent of the ad scheduling is to be so annoying that it motivates people on the fence to pay for premium.
77.
by not2b 2y ago
Is the name "O"? That's a common Korean surname, though many Korean Americans spell it "Oh" to avoid the problems computers and bureaucrats have with it.
78.
by not2b 2y ago
Statistics I can find via search differ by a lot, but https://www.appbrain.com/stats/number-of-android-apps says there are currently 1.58M available apps. So, it seems they are moving more apps than they are allowing.
79.
by not2b 2y ago
It seems that they have changed their minds about surveillance back doors, after some devastating attacks, where Chinese state actors (among others) used back doors created for compliance with warrants to get in. But that was the pre-Trump
80.
by not2b 2y ago
I don't think so. I have many nontechnical friends who are furious at having to deal with bad AI, whether it's a stupid chatbot that they have to talk to instead of a real person or Google "AI overviews" that often get t
81.
by not2b 2y ago
Yes, same architect (Dave Cutler), and WNT is (V+1)(M+1)(S+1) though they probably didn't do that on purpose.
82.
by not2b 2y ago
Their "moderators" are bots, not humans, so it seems that the bots have "decided" that Linux-related links are malware or something.
83.
by not2b 2y ago
For my wife (type 1 diabetic), physical activity is the big one that throws off her calculations as a walk in a hilly area makes her blood sugar drop like a rock. Of course she always has something with sugar with her but then she has to fi
84.
by not2b 2y ago
Competition is fine. Deception, though, is more problematic, and if multiple pitches depend on it (like market a service to brokers to get their info but don't tell them the plan is to eliminate their jobs), people will be on to you if
85.
by not2b 2y ago
Multiple "diabolical" (his word, not mine) plans to fool people about what the business really is (an attempt to get in the door with one pitch, then pivot to the real plan and steal their lunch) did not work out. Sorry about that
86.
by not2b 2y ago
Usually people are interested in branchless implementations for cryptography applications, to avoid timing side channels (though you then have to make sure that the generated instructions don't have different timing for different input
87.
by not2b 2y ago
True, but you're talking about the difference between "only one person understands this, that's a risk!" and "zero people understand this".
88.
by not2b 2y ago
Most Linux kernel contributors are professionals who are paid for their work. They aren't hobbyists. However, there are quite a few critically important tools and libraries that are essentially maintained by a volunteer as a hobby, and
89.
by not2b 2y ago
Unless the plan is to quickly produce a prototype that will be mostly thrown away, any code that gets into the product is going to generate far more work maintaining it over the lifetime of a product than the cost to code it in the first pl
90.
by not2b 2y ago
And the article we are discussing explains why this is incorrect.

More ›