Yeah, you can't really undo brain damage with more brain damage.
3,730 karma · joined November 6, 2018
Of course we should have done that ages ago, but, you see, 20 years ago or so, Verisign (and maybe others) had a profit stream to protect and people to send to the IETF. And it's just possible there may have been other players with vested interests in things not getting too secure.
They do not mean "any LLM chatbot"
What we have here with Trump is properly known as "superstupidity": a degree of stupidity that is at best metastable in any physical system, and eventually collapses upward to the intelligence ground state, which is roughly the intelligence of the vaccum.
The second was giving out access to "companies and associations" that might have "legitimate needs".
THEN we get to morons using passwords like that.
Anybody who thinks that poor human oversight and system design are "totally preventable" is not in a good position to say anybody else doesn't understand security.
Greetings from Canada. I live in Montreal. We have more of a Mafia problem nowadays than New York (no RICO here), and we were comparable in the 1930s. Bootleggers, remember? Where do you think they were running the booze from? Same "market", same mob. Yeah, they managed to dominate everybody else. That's what I mean about "niches". In fact they did it worldwide, and according to Wikipedia they're prominent in Australia, too. These are transnational groups. The Mafia is also big in Sicily. Are you going to say that's because of (checks notes) Sicilian immigration? Specifically because of a huge wave around 1900?
We also have Hell's Angels here. Ethnically "white". No immigrant identification whatsoever, totally acculturated... although I assume some of them moved here from the US. Pretty racist and anti-immigrant, actually. Cool fact: I used to live two houses away from Sonny Barger in beautiful Oakland, California. OK, it wasn't actually that cool. Those guys were really noisy. But I assure you they did not come through Ellis Island.
Apparently Winnipeg has First Nations gangs (Indians to you). Kinda the opposite of immigrants.
... plus a grab bag of others, some of them organized by immigrants. Yes, organized crime tends to segregate itself ethnically, so if one group gets the upper hand, you're likely to see its ethnicity as the face of the problem. But all ethnicities get to play, and they will expand into any available vacuum. If you hadn't had the Italian Mafia (worldwide), you'd have had something else (at least regionally).
And it's not always ethnic. Apparently there's a gang in BC that actually calls itself the United Nations.
> Tammany Hall was not a political machine in 1789.
It sure was by 1854, eh, according to your own quote? That was 38 years before Ellis Island opened. Before the specific wave of immigration that you're claiming caused the problem. Goalposts. You are moving them.
> Irish domination of Chicago's political machine long outlasted the Ellis Island era
... and preceded it. Your own link says "Of the 28 most influential Chicago aldermen of the 1890s, 24 were Irish.". I don't think they teleported from Ellis Island and took over in under 8 years.
About ten and a half million of those in 15 years, from 1900 to 1914. Against a 1900 US population of about 76 million.
> The U.S. strictly restricted immigration for more than 40 years to assimilate the immigrants.
Or, you know, because the political wind changed.
> Even after all that, the U.S. paid a heavy price. It took until the 1980s to clean up the Italian mafia in New York.
Right. Because nobody else would've filled that niche.
> And immigrant political machines were the origin of the corrupt political structures in cities like New York
The Tammany Hall machine was founded in 1789, was basically running New York by the 1850s, and was in the thick of New York corruption well past the relevance of Ellis Island.
> and Chicago today.
Chicago Democrats were immigrants around the relevant time. Chicago Republicans were from older stock. Both were corrupt.
... as determined by an on-the-spot interview. Which was admittedly done in a very bigoted way.
> had passed a medical inspection
... which took about one minute to check for red flags. If you had red flags, they diverted you to quarantine. They were mostly looking for TB and some eye disease.
> had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same
... by which they meant having as much as $25 on hand (call it $1000 in 2026, though that's a bit high), and convincing the interviewer that you could probably get a job. That convincing step did include claiming, in a way the interviewer found credible, to have skills beyond the "day laborer" level. But only just beyond.
> I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.
Good news: the medical requirements now are equivalent, the financial/self-support requirements are now much, much higher, and the vetting is vastly more thorough.
I doubt antitrust would get anywhere on this RAM issue, but antitrust law is not defined in terms of either of those categories.
It's not irrational to notice that irrational actors do irrational things.
It would be great to have a widely-recognizable pseudodomain out there where the names were key hashes. It would actually graft really easily into DNSSEC. The zone format doesn't have to change at all; you just declare that if the KSK hash matches the domain label under this specific TLD, you don't need to check upstream of that. Then you add a P2P protocol for getting the actual data, and start slowly pushing that protocol down the resolver tree to incrementally decentralize everything.
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but sometimes you find out about things after the fact.
> Linux follows international sanctions in not allowing citizens of certain countries to be involved in any way, why isn't Anthropic following the law?
I know it may be complicated for you to understand, but people will try to circumvent any measures you might use to exclude "citizens of certain countries"... and will often succeed. That also applies to the measures Linux uses, by the way.
> Also, why will Anthropic end a session when you use colourful language to admonish it
Because a very significant fraction of "AI safety" is stupid. That particular kind of stupid "safety" tends to show up downstream of external pressures. Mostly from people who open with "Why doesn't Anthropic just...". Not to say that they don't also have internal sources of stupidity.
> yet apparently just knowingly allows terrorists to develop weapons?
Because, and do try to keep up on this one, rocket guidance is not necessarily "weapons", it's not always obvious that what you're working on is rocket guidance, and on the Internet nobody knows you're a terrorist.
But what I really wanted to mention is that flock is not the government, and flock's services are not exclusively available to governments.
Same goes for their competitors.
The circuit one is definitely older, probably has more users, and is just as relevant in this forum.
Whoa. That's not even something it should be able to detect. What's the gaping security hole that lets it do that?
The word "result" is doing a lot of work there. `printf ("%d\n", 2+2);` isn't interesting because 4 appears in a memory cell; it's interesting because 4 appears on stdout. Which one is the "result"?
If you're going to make assumptions about what's "inside" the program and what's "outside", you have to make them explicit. And they have to be reasonable assumptions. An assumption that memory is "inside" has to be justified in the presence of shared memory, virtual memory, debuggers, or whatever. You have to actually explain what you mean in a lot more detail than I think the average spec has a chance of doing.
If I create an unlinked temp file, and the compiler can observe that I'm holding the only FD open on that file, should that file be seen as "inside the computation", or as "a collection of results and inputs"?
Without reading the specs, I can be 95 percent sure that they don't nail down all the issues... and 100 percent sure that if they do nail down all the issues, or even all the possibly important issues, the corner cases are unknown to almost all actual programmers. Which means either that it's not appropriate for the compiler to rely on just any rule regardless of what the spec says, or that it's not reasonable to write code in the language.
Well, it sounds like a lot of compilers are making unjustified assumptions about what the outside world is allowed to affect or observe. Maybe with the encouragement of specs, maybe not.