pas

20 ms·

481.
by pas 1y ago
sure, but they have both human and machine stuff in the same "universe" - again, sure, it made sense, but maybe it would make sense to have a parser that helps to recover "human stuff" from "machine gibberish"
482.
by pas 1y ago
can you describe a few examples? what are you missing? or maybe are you aware of something they rejected that would be useful?
483.
by pas 1y ago
I think for username it's fine, where a bit of restraint makes sense is for billing/shipping/legal-ish data.
484.
by pas 1y ago
it can be, but because it started as an SGML language (and nowadays who knows what it is) it allows ambiguous structures, plus it doesn't support arbitrary tags, whereas in XML the structure is strict but the tag schema is completely f
485.
by pas 1y ago
but why priviligize XML? there's WASM and sites can have any kinds of codecs they want. unfortunately(?) modern browsers are turning more into these sandbox and state managers with a few lower-level rendering engines bolted together (J
486.
by pas 1y ago
It's completely in-line with Rust's approach. Concentrate on the hard stuff that lifts every boat. Like the type system, language features, and keep the standard library very small, and maybe import/adopt very successful pack
487.
by pas 1y ago
is there any issue besides the potential zombies? also, why can't the real pid1 do it? it sees all the processes after all.
488.
by pas 1y ago
companies that use LLM for support already were pretty deep in the woods with some outsourced unfortunate agent behind the curtains, so they replaced one not very good solution with an even worse, but cheaper one. and since the whole world
489.
by pas 1y ago
lots of time, many iterations, affinity for the hard questions, some expertise in research (and Haskell). oh, and also it helps if someone is funding your little endeavor :)
490.
by pas 1y ago
Sure, of course, but unless funding is coming from users the economics won't change, because: The vendors cite an aspect of said responsibility (security!) to get rid of an other aspect (costly maintenance of a low-revenue feature). Th
491.
by pas 1y ago
> vibes always has been (and there's comfort in numbers, no one got fired for buying IBM, etc..)
492.
by pas 1y ago
the top100 richest people on the globe can do a lot more stupid stuff and still walk away to a comfortable retirement, whereas the bottom 10-20-.. percent doesn't have this luxury. not to mention that these rich guys are playing with t
493.
by pas 1y ago
That's just the taste of iron from the blood after the duel. But this is completely normal after a formal challenge! Companies want real cyberwarriors, and the old (lame) rockstar ninjas that they hired 10 years ago are very prone to i
494.
by pas 1y ago
You mean they are fine with expecting it to be maintained by browser vendors indefinitely for free.
495.
by pas 1y ago
There's nothing inevitable about this. Civil society needs to organize, coordinate, and spend money on PR about this. Right now liberal people mostly sit back and wait for things to get better, it's not enough. (Also going and wal
496.
by pas 1y ago
or, the downstream users who use it and benefit directly from it could step up, but websites and their users are extremely good at expecting things to just magically keep working especially if they don't pay for it. it was free, so i
497.
by pas 1y ago
showing a plastic card in a store to buy the yearly Cum Companion Calendar or whatever is one thing, because the clerk likely is not a savant with eidetic memory, whereas online there's this little thing happening called data processin
498.
by pas 1y ago
next step is to try to make VPNs illegal (or require age verification for them, of course)
499.
by pas 1y ago
What people want is critically important, yet they are heart wrenchingly unaware how (web1.0) technology cannot give it to them. And on a fundamental level - ie. as an information security problem - preventing copying by bots is logically i
500.
by pas 1y ago
I appreciate the intents, needs, concerns of my fellow humans, but it seems they are fundamentally unaware of the sociotechnological limitations of Web 1.0. I also would like to see many of these bot owners to radically reevaluate their p
501.
by pas 1y ago
> that could apply to most people what does that mean? most people have more than 99% identical genes yet we are not clones. most people don't have a perfect BMI of 23.5 (or whatever is the middle), yet there are clear pathologies o
502.
by pas 1y ago
you can open the XR/LR capsules too, there's just a bunch of small "grains" inside, with different coatings, and thus they get digested at different rates, and basically it's like eating one instant release and one
503.
by pas 1y ago
sorry, could you explain why is it harder, where the complexity creeps in (compared to some naive "pattern matching the end of the response" tactic)? thanks!
504.
by pas 1y ago
can you please explain how packet pacing factors into this?
505.
by pas 1y ago
... it's strictly better that this guy realized that there's a problem and spoke up rather than staying quiet, or staying a GOP supporter that said it's very hard to accept that most people are truly proper fucking idiots, an
506.
by pas 1y ago
it's not security, it's an economic disincentive, it's basically throttling.
507.
by pas 1y ago
How that dysfunction compares to similar socioeconomic group(s' median) baseline?
508.
by pas 1y ago
What is the connection between the Ziz crazies killing anyone and rationalism?
509.
by pas 1y ago
How big is this 3rd gap compared to the aforementioned 2 other gaps?
510.
by pas 1y ago
Or just let this LLM mania run to its conclusion, and we'll end up with two webs, one for profit for AI by AI and one where people put their shit for themselves (and don't really care what others think about it, or if they remix i

More ›