CoastalCoder

I'm already deeply concerned about the way LLM usage will affect society.

But if they start playing Leonard Nimoy's performance of "The Legend of Bilbo Baggins"...

IANAL, but wouldn't this LLM behavior be more akin to a human re-publishing an entire book to some third party, in exchange for money?

You may have a valid technical point.

If you find a friendlier way to phrase it, you may find more people willing to discuss it.

That may have been a bad reaction. Ask your doctor is KDE is right for you!

Really makes one appreciate that concept of A.C.I.D. database transactions.

I'd usually say Pop_OS!

But my recent upgrade to Pop version 24.04 has been a bit of a step back in terms of desktop experience.

I suspect it's growing pains from (switching to Wayland) + (non-System76 hardware) + (laptop with nVidia dGPU + external monitor).

So with different hardware, and/or some more time to mature, this Pop release will probably be a very solid choice.

Is there any reason to believe that the same carpet-pull won't occur with those brands?

I thought the whole trick was arbitrage on the delayed awareness of reduced quality.

Absolutely for things like (pseudo) random-number streams.

Some tests can be at the mercy of details that are hard to control, e.g. thread scheduling, thermal-based CPU throttling, or memory pressure from other activity on the system

> Always include some randomness in test values.

If this isn't a joke, I'd be very interested in the reasoning behind that statement, and whether or not there are some qualifications on when it applies.

What would you consider more appropriate?

I'm not willing to start another actual civil war over Trump's presidency.

I figured an apology was at least an improvement over not apologizing.

I fear it's going to take more than just one other president.

Now we've all see what one bad POTUS can do to the world, and I don't know if/how/why the world would trulyove past that.

It reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "The Shelter" [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shelter_(The_Twilight_Zone...

My dear friends to the north: I just want to repeat how sorry many of us are for this.

I had the same thought.

But can we really rule out it being part of such a strategy?

Yeah, but there was a spoof on that (in Family Guy?). It was a tie in to the movie "I Know what you Did last Summer", IIRC.

Sometimes this happens when the original comment being replied to is subsequently edited.

It seems obvious to me that the only real solution is to penalize the payment of ransoms. For the same reasons one doesn't negotiate with terrorists.

Is there some reason to believe that this isn't the best approach? And if not, then any theories as to why it hasn't been enacted?

> The fact that humanity sent people back to the moon barely even registered.

Are you sure that people would have cared much even in better times?

Although I'm just as subject to the fatigue as everyone else, this just isn't a pursuit that I see as important.

TBH I think dealing with global warming, cancer, homelessness, AI impact on human cognitive development, and the loneliness epidemic are far higher priorities.

Related, I've been surprised that we haven't had more violence against corporations and/or their leadership in the vein of Luigi Mangione.

E.g., suppose that 1,000,000 persons believe that a corporation's evil acts destroyed their happiness [0]. I would have guessed that at least 1 person in that crowd would be so unhinged by the experience that they'd make a viable attempt at vengeance.

But I'm just not hearing of that happening, at least not nearly to the extent I would have guessed. I'm curious where my thinking is wrong.

[0] E.g., big tobacco, the Sacklers with Oxycontin, insurance companies delaying lifesaving treatment, or the Bhopal disaster.

> But it's impossible to have a buffet overflow in rust

I dunno, I can only listen to Margaritaville so many times in a row.

> Never ever build in '-03 -march=native' by default. This is always a red flag and a sign of immaturity.

Perhaps you can see how there are some assumptions baked into that statement.

I wonder.

Is it possible that we're not actually that resilient, but instead it will just take tens of years for the damage to fully manifest?

I'd like to suggest calling him SECDEF, not SECWAR.

IMHO the country should not capitulate to Trump's power grabs, even if Congress refuses to perform their oversight duties.

> How did it get that we live in a world where you can't trust a client to enforce its own documented behavior?

My guess a combo of economic incentives and weak legal protections.

I realize that answer applies to so many issues as to be almost not worth saving, but I think it's still true here.

Out of curiosity, why do you see this as a worthwhile endeavor?

My personal perspective is that the resources are better used for other purposes, but it's possible that I just haven't encountered some compelling reason yet.

For the first time in quite a while, I've started reading a challenging, non-computer book ("The New Testament in its World").

I'm trying to decide if my attention span has atrophied, or if I'm just more aware now of my ADD.

Either way, I'm hopeful that my attention span for this kind of reading will grow with practice.

> Women candidates

What I meant was Biden and then Harris.

I'm not a politico, but IMHO Harris didn't have enough time to clarify her positions, and to address the points raised by her opposition.

Also, I wonder if the way she was chosen by the Democratic Party rubbed some people the wrong way enough for them to abstain from voting as a form of protest.

Thanks. FWIW I wasn't trying to imply that we should have sympathy for him.

My only point was that so much of this suffering, both for himself and others, could be avoided but for his choices and flaws.

I'm guessing that one reason we got Trump is that the Democrats presented two poor alternatives in a row.

It was clear that Biden was mentally slipping. Even if you were a fan of his general politics, 4 additional years of mental decline while in office was a scary prospect.

And then Kamala Harris was given very little time to sell herself to the voters.

I'm wondering if Trump would have won had the Democrats presented someone more appealing earlier in the campaign.

My working theory is that Trump is best understood as an epically tragic character.

So desperate to be valued and liked, that he desperately grabs at anything and everything to get the acclaim that, under normal circumstances, would signify that.

His besetting character flaws foreclose any possibility of attaining the actual approval he seeks.

And so, with his misguided approaches to getting praise and love, the harder he tries the further they are from his reach.

Adding to that tragedy is that a 180-degree U-turn is still within his reach. He could do it today, and probably get some of what he most deeply wants. But I think the most likely outcome is that he'll keep his current trajectory for the rest of his life.

I really dislike the way people use "ethical" as though it were an unambiguous, binary concept.

Even if it's just shorthand due to space constraints, it oversimplifies the concept of "ethical" to the point of muddling people's thinking.