Chabsff

Yes, but you could also say that it was created so that advertisers stop doing complete nonsense like tracking pixels and other roundabout ways of accomplishing the same thing in ways that are sometimes (often?) detrimental to the user.

Sure, it's a form of capitulation to advertisers, that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't benefit the user.

If advertisers are going to be doing that stuff no matter what, corralling them has advantages. If anything, it makes creating an extension like OP's a lot easier than playing whack-a-mole with a litany of random techniques.

Nah, you're good. I've just been burned by Poe's law one time too many.

I really hope this post is a joke, but I can't tell for sure...

"Powerline Ethernet is a simple inversion of POE" is like saying that an internal combustion engine is the simple inversion of an oil well.

Wait. Do people run agents as their own user? Does nobody setup a dedicated user/group with a very specific set of permissions?

It's not even hard to do! *NIX systems are literally designed to handle stuff like this easily.

In this instance, I think "bootstrapped" might be appropriate.

What do copyright laws (which, don't get me wrong, have a whole kettle of issues for sure) have to do with this?

DRM is just a thing that authors choose to put into their media. The fact that they do it because enforcing copyright via legal channels is unrealistic is effectively incidental.

If anything, what is necessary to achieve the objective is putting limits on what authors are allowed to put inside of the media they are producing, which is a heck of a can of worms in of itself that I think zealous preservation advocates are a bit too eager to brush off.

I've been bearish of these efforts over the years, and remain so. In my more cynical moments, I even entertain the thought that it's mostly a means to delay aggressive regulatory oversight by way of empty promises.

Time and time again, opaque end-to-end models keep outperforming any attempt to enforce structure, which is needed to _some_ degree to achieve this in non-prompting manners.

And in a vague intuitive way, that makes sense. The whole point of training-based AI is to achieve stuff you can't practically from a pure algorithmic approach.

Edit: before the pedants lash out. Yes, model structure matters. I'm oversimplifying here.

The issue with that reasoning is that it fails to take into account that risk is a commodity now. It's often more profitable to go for short term profit and offload your risk to an insurer who amortizes that monetary risk in a pool containing a bunch of other industries.

For critical services like food production, that's a problem. "Well, we don't have food, but it's okay because screw production went well" doesn't make sense socially, but our system makes it so monetarily.

You make the distinction between something being in the standard library vs an arbitrary external package sound like a minor detail.

It's not. It makes a world of difference. Having a hard guarantee that you are not dragging any transient dependency is often a big deal. Not to mention the maintenance guarantees.

The whole "tries all possible combinations" thing is a very misleading oversimplification in the first place.

Instead, think of it more like a completely different set of operations than classical computers that, if you were to try and replicate/simulate them using a classical computer, you would have no choice but to try all possible combinations in order to do so. Even that is oversimplifying, but I find it at least doesn't hint at "like computers, but faster", and is as close as making the parallelism pov "correct" as you're going to get.

What these operations do is pretty exotic and doesn't really map onto any straightforward classical computing primitives, which puts a pretty harsh limit of what you can ask them to do. If you are clever enough, you can mix and match them in order to do some useful stuff really quickly, much faster than you ever could with classical computers. But that only goes for the stuff you can make them do in the first place.

That's pretty much the extent I believe someone can "understand" quantum computing without delving into the actual math of it.

You're not as wrong as you think you are.

"Have you ever said my name backwards? There is a strange music to it" - Artanis (SC2 LOTV)

Isn't "deep learning" specifically referring to the breakthroughs that finally started addressing the issues preventing architectures with more than a single hidden layer from achieving anything?

Unless I'm getting all of that wrong, it doesn't sound like that bad of a term. I get that it has since been used and abused to absurdity. But it's not like it came out of nowhere at first.

I'm just going to be the one to point out that the account you are replying to is called "Trump2026" and was registered 3 days ago.

> 2) it addresses a key part of their workflow, but the primary process exists in some other system so they are not willing to add a new system,

This cannot be overstated enough. If you are planning a B2B product, especially anything middleware-ish, not planning for this on your upfront is just begging for failure.

No, these are the proper laureates (for that topic anyways, whether the topic is appropriate in the first place is another matter). LeCun and Bengio's works are undoubtedly immensely impactful, but there's no denying that they are standing on shoulders of giants.

The original value-proposal for Chrome was: The more people browse the web in general, the more Google profits. So the mere existence of a good free, fast, and safe browser would inherently benefit Google at large in general. And that rationale is why we get to have Chromium at all.

Obviously things have evolved quite a bit since then, but I think the general pitch that Chrome is primarily a value-multiplier for the org at large, rather than a direct value generator is still broadly the case, and it's really not clear to me that it can exist as anything else without a fundamental reassessment of what it's trying to accomplish.

You typically want a mix of UDP and TCP (or sometimes a weird TCP-like monstrosity rebuilt on top of UDP).

Taking great care to design your data streams to be self-correcting (e.g. transfer a world location where characters are going towards instead of which direction they are heading) can go a long way towards saving a ton of synching headaches, and enables very efficient networking.

One-off events go over the TCP-like channel, but constant streaming data that naturally self-correct over time, like the example above, can benefit from being on the UDP channel.

For me, at least, it's not so much the crypto ads in of themselves that puts me off Brave. The issue is that they are a manifestation of Brave's fundamental problem: It's a for-profit endeavor based around offering a free product.

The money has to come from somewhere.

All other browsers have some kind of reasonable story behind the investment made into their existence (yes, even Chrome). Brave doesn't have any, and if the crypto ads stopped paying the bills, there must be something else that comes around to do so. Frankly, I wouldn't trust anyone who's put in that sort of situation with a piece of software I use to access anything important. Doubly so if crypto is a load-bearing component of the current status quo.

The embedded RP2040 is really interesting. I wonder what the CPU<->MCU latency looks like. You can pull off some really neat stuff with very tight timing using that chip.

Also an interesting addition for a platform that is clearly meant to compete against RPI in general.

Not necessarily either. It's not particularly hard to create a vector where in-order addition is the most accurate way to sum its terms. All you need is a sequence where the next term is close to the sum of all prior ones.

There just isn't a one-size-fit-all solution to be had here.

Not necessarily. If the array is large and the values are similar, using accumulators would yield a more accurate result than a single one.

I used to (early 00s) be super big into GA and GP until a professor of mine at the time described the whole class of algorithms as "Marginally better than brute forcing". That really resonated with my experience, and was just too spot-on to ignore.

Unfortunately, creative and interesting use of the technology is both not how its being portrayed and also, critically, not how its being marketed and/or used.

The current expectation is that these models allow the creation of equivalent artwork to what artists are currently producing, but at larger scale / lower cost / shorter training. All of these boil down to less effort. And perceived effort is a large part of what brings value to art.

> I think you're referring to the fact that genetic differences between individuals within a group are larger than differences between groups

But that's the rub though: How do you define that there are groups in the first place? There is no way to land at our socially-defined set of races via objective means.

It makes intuitive sense, but intuition is often misleading and deserves to be double checked.

In this particular case, while there does exist a set of alleles against which you can cluster populations in a way that maps roughly to the set of races we define socially, that only represents < 10% of the genetic variation across populations. Basically, that means you need to arbitrarily toss out > 80% of the dimensionality of your data for that clustering to meaningfully map against what we socially construe as "race".

This casts a large shadow on the idea that the genetic notion of "race" can serve as support for using the social notion of "race" as a means to treat anyone differently. You may be correct in the strictest technical sense, but the link is so tenuous that it can't really be used for anything useful.

"Race is a social construct" is a bit of a misnomer. The proper formulation should probably be something like "Race is only meaningful because we socially decided to make it so."

Genetic clustering segregates people into a different set of groups than the ones that are involved in discussions such as this one. It's a different definition of "race".

I don't mind them omitting this particular set of numbers because the very strong correlation between race and socio-economic status tends to change the picture considerably when you control for it.

The raw numbers are misleading in a very politically charged way.

> For example, you may have the cards to kill an enemy now - but it may be more beneficial to wait - either to increment the counter on a relic, or to draw a card that does an effect on a fatal hit.

How is this any different than chess?

Solving this using a LLM is novel and interesting, but I'd feel confident in claiming that writing an AI bot for STS using "classic" AI methods would be pretty easy, actually.

At the risk of repeating myself. The issue with Hot Coffee was that it cast a huge shadow on the ESRB system itself.

It's worth pointing out that what you are fondly remembering from a consumer standpoint was an absolute nightmare from the publishers', and not just for pure greed, though that definitely plays a role.

Game consoles were (and still are to a some degree), by and large, toys. Toys that parents buy for their children with the expectation that they can be mostly left to their own devices with them. The ESRB/PEGI/etc. ratings system was put in place so that parents would be able to trust that they know what's in the toy without having to sit over the kids' shoulders every single minute they are playing. In a sense it's not unlike Mattel spending a lot of energy making sure their dolls and action figures don't pose any choking hazards.

Allowing modding breaks that system, and by extension the accompanying trust. This is a big deal for a toy manufacturer. It's also why Hot Coffee was such a mess despite the content not being normally accessible. Parents don't want to have to care about technicalities.

People like to think of this situation as a "think of the children"-type of hand-wringing, but it's actually more of a "think of the parents", who happen to be the ones with money.

Again, not discounting the greed and DRM aspects of this, and it definitely sucks pretty hard for adult users of the systems, but it's far from all there is to it.