rcxdude
Joined 8,984 karma
- rcxdudeYeah, you probably want something that activates a bit earlier. I think the issue is the OOM killer won't activate until essentially everything that can be paged out is paged out, and that includes most code pages, so the system enters a death spiral of paging code in and out and stops making progress towards a point where the OOM killer would kick in. There's userspace daemons like earlyoom that help a lot with this.
- Keep in mind the definition of 'work': Bitcoin was originally intended to be a day-to-day medium of exchange, not a 'long term store of value'. It's much more of a threat to governments as the former but that really hasn't actually panned out (including in the places you mention), and it's just a random speculative asset which financial systems will toy with like any other.
- Man, if there's one idea I wish I could jam into the head of anyone running an organization, it would be queuing theory. So many people can't understand that slack is necessary to have quick turnaround.
- Yeah, I always think it's kinda rude to throw something to someone else to review without reviewing it yourself, even if you were the one to write it. Looking at it twice yourself can help with catching things even faster than someone else getting up to speed with what you were doing and querying it. Now it seems like with LLMs people are putting code up for review that hasn't even been looked at once.
- Sanitisation is a tricky process, it can be real easy for something to slip through the cracks.
- Fact of the matter is that code quality is a pretty small part of whether a game is good or not. It can be notable when it's good and it can sink a game when it's really bad, but there's a huge gap in the middle where it doesn't really matter that much (especially to the player).
- Isn't that basically what the average logging framework is?
- There's extraction hoods that are aiming to do the opposite, it depends on what you're more concerned about. (doing both, is of course, much more annoying)
- presumably because a) it still allows the source code to be available and used for the 'permitted purposes' (i.e. anything that's not directly competing), and b) it represents a concrete commitment to open up, not just a pinkie promise (even if they were to have a license or contract which promised it, it would not be as easy to rely on as actually having the source code published. Companies have reneged on such promises before).
And yeah, by my reading essentially people can contribute code or publish patches (with just a plain MIT license in principle), just the original and derivatives still can't be used for non-permitted purposes until the timer is up.
- This is especially amazing given how much of wayland friction is in the name of security ("Why would we ever standardise a way to intercept and send keystrokes? it's not secure!")
- The main thing isn't validating the cert you're looking at, per se, it's to validate the activities of the issuers. Mainly that they aren't issuing certificates they aren't supposed to (i.e. you can monitor the logs for your domain to check some random CA you've never done business hasn't issued a cert for it). This is mainly enforced by any violations (i.e. any certificates found that don't show up in the logs) being grounds for being removed from browser's trusted list.
- Uuids also allow the generation of the ID to seperate from the insertion into the database, which can be useful in distributed systems.
- Which is why you should think about how these options interact and compose at the start, as opposed to only adding options in an ad-hoc manner (whether you do it willy-nilly or only when your arm is really twisted)
- It's plausible that they are using an LLM for translation, which would create the tone but not necessarily mean that they are delegating all thought to it.
- Please look at the examples in the article and consider re-calibrating your numbers here. The lower range of heritability means that it is mostly noise.
- The thing that worries me is that it's still not obvious that fusion wouldn't also be the extremely expensive, slow to build boondoggle that fission is.
- With zero-knowledge-proofs the age verification could look like this: you go to whatever age verification service and get a certificate that says you're over the age of 18 (which you only need to do once or at least once per whatever expiry period). You then go to the age-gated website and they ask for proof. You generate (on your own device) a zero-knowledge proof that you have the certificate, but neither the website nor the verification service can determine which certificate it is, and in fact the verification service doesn't even know you've used the certificate.
- The Chinese Room is a pretty useless thought exercise I think. It's an example which if you believe machines can't think seems like an utterly obvious result, and if you believe machines can think it's just obviously wrong.
- It's a thing in other countries. Scotland has the 'right to roam' which basically allows anyone responsible access to private land by most non-motorised means. It obviously doesn't extend to people's houses and gardens, and there's also exclusions for fields with crops (but not livestock) and hunting/fishing. But you can hike, bike, horse-ride, canoe, or camp on someone else's land so long as you aren't causing any mess or trouble.
- If anything the build being in a container is the more valuable bit, though mainly because the container usually more repeatable by having a scripted setup itself. Though I dunno why the build and the host would be the _same_ container in the end.
(and of course, nix kinda blows both out the water for consistency)