MostlyStable

So...no engagement with the substance? Not even to explain why it is that this is not a useful description or test of capabilities? Ok.

...given the line you quoted from the FAQ, I'm a bit confused about why you are still wondering. That seems about as straight forward of an answer to your question as one could expect.

The OPs (incorrect in this very minor detail) point was that fertility is below replacement everywhere except Israel, where the only reason it wasn't below replacement was Orthodox religious members of society. That's just wrong. Fertility in Israel, across every single group except for one in your own data, is above replacement. Orthodox are the highest, and bringing the overall number up, but if you removed them, fertility in Israel would still be comfortably above replacement.

So no, their characterization was not correct, since the point was that, absent a particular group, fertility would be, like in almost every other OECD (and many non OECD) countries, below replacement.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is more evidence, and of greater rigor, than was used to make the assertions. That's good enough for me. If someone wants to actually do the work to support the original claims with better evidence, great. I'd love to see it. Until then, I'm going to not worry about this issue.

Because you think that current models can, in a practical sense, find an infinite number of vulnerabilities, or you think that they can find so many that it isn't possible to fix them?

In other words: do you think that the impossibility lines in exhausting the number finds or does the impossibility lie in fixing them?

In either case, do you think that this was also true pre-AI? That is to say: it was not possible to, given some set of practical resource constraints, find and fix all the vulnerabilities that a similarly-resourced group would find?

If so, then would you say that you just fundamentally don't believe in secure software and the only defense is lack of attention?

We don't need to squash all of them, we need to squash all of them that are practically findable by current and very near term frontier models.

My lab does fish population monitoring around the Bay, including the mouth of Alameda creek, so I suppose one entry in the "good problems to have" is another potential spot where we could start catching steelhead and chinook, given that we have an extremely limited allowance.

I don't believe that they have (yet) released a new display for the 12. But the 13 has gotten several upgrades, and I think the 16 just got it's first. So, most likely eventually yes.

This is an interesting claim to make. Up until quite recently (I mean that in the usual sense of the word, not the AI world sense of the word), almost no one had heard of Anthropic or Claude, despite an reasonably aggressive ad campaign, even at the point when most people would have known about ChatGPT.

Even now, I would guess that if you ask a normie off the street, they are far, far more likely to have heard of ChatGPT than Claude. Of course, Anthropic has been targeting businesses quite a bit harder than the general public for a while, so maybe that's not a fair test.

Anthropic inarguably does make an attempt at marketing their product. But I'm not convinced that the closing of the gap between them and OpenAI (as others have pointed out: I'm not sure it's defensible to claim that either is significantly ahead of the other given the paucity of available data, but they are certainly much closer than they were a year or two ago, when OpenAI was clearly in the lead) is mostly down to that. I think that, for a decent chunk of time (this one I mean in the AI world sense of the term), they had a very non-trivial lead in coding abilities. The developer and business world figured this out and jumped on board. That gap is largely now erased, but that's not enough to retake the momentum.

Pangram specifically (as opposed to most other detectors) publish internal audits, and seem to welcome external audits [0]. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that in my opinion they have earned a higher bar of criticism than random one off anecdote.

[0] https://xcancel.com/JohnHolbein1/status/2059648132250570975#...

This seems like less of a reason to get off of Homeassistant and more a reason to stop buying closed source/cloud only products to connect to HomeAssistant.

I just found out about an open source product that might fit your needs, the WiCAN:

https://www.meatpi.com/products/wican-pro

The neo isn't upgradeable, but it also isn't sealed shut. It's actually one of Apple's most repairable devices. If I were in the market for this class of device, I personally would still go with Framework for a variety of reasons, but I still think it's important to give apple praise for the pro-consumer choices they made (and probably could have gotten away without) in the Neo.

I think this is part of the issue. Most activities can be divided into two categories (obviously this is only one of many different ways to categorize):

1. Things which are done primarily to accomplish a specific goal

2. Things which are done primarily for the joy of doing them.

Many tasks have aspects of both of these things. Automation, in all it's forms, is a way of maximizing the first, often at the expense of the second. When a new category of task first falls to automation, I think it takes a while for us to figure out how to pursue it solely for the second, but the two can co-exist. Backyard gardening and industrial agriculture both have their place.

Right now, coding and tech is, seemingly, in the middle of that transition. It's going to take a while before people learn to separate the two kinds of goal I think.

I wonder if it is actually animating the wheels as well, but just managed to match up the spin rate to the gap size.

It's declining nearly everywhere except for some portions of Africa (where the trend is also towards lower fertility. I'm not aware of anywhere that is both "stable" (~2.1) and has a flat trend; that is to say that it isn't just momentarily passing through stability on it's way to declining population.

Man, if only the article I had posted had answered those questions. That sure would be nice

https://blog.kagi.com/kagi-privacy-pass

https://github.com/kagisearch/privacypass-extension

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43040521

Yes and yes, since you you apparently aren't capable of reading for yourself

-edit- I decided I didn't like the tenor of the comments I made. This tone serves nothing but to degrade the quality of online discourse so I will say this:

I don't personally have the technical chops to verify the claims that Kagi is making. And no one should blindly trust the statements of faceless companies. For me personally, the claims, discussion in the linked hacker news post, and the direction of Kagi's economic incentives are enough to satisfy me personally. Nothing says that someone else must be satisfied by that level of evidence, which is definitely not proof positive. However, I also very strongly believe that the level of paranoia that it takes to decide that all of that is not enough would also 100% disbar one from using google, even without an account. I do not think that one can honestly say that, with the evidence we have on hand, that Kagi is less privacy protecting that google. They may not be privacy protecting enough, whatever standard that is for someone, but they are absolutely doing more than google.

Here ya go:

https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html

Google Authenticator has an export-as-QR-code function that several other authenticator apps can parse. Is it the best/most convenient implementation? Obviously not, but you can absolutely export the codes.

While I'm not _happy_ about the messaging changes, those alone are not enough to do more than start paying closer attention. I highly, highly doubt that vault export would be the first meaningful feature change, and so I think there will be stronger signals of actual issues before then.

As I understand it, so far the only actual change is an announced increase in prices. Obviously, from the consumer perspective, cheaper is better, but this is a product where I think that a subscription plan makes sense (and the free tier, for now, still exists), and so I'm not going to get mad about price changes. Competitors exist and one doesn't think the new price is worth it, then switch to one of them (using the very-much-still-available vault export).

I don't think the warning is crazy or anything, but in my personal opinion it's a little stronger/earlier than is warranted and the current appropriate response is careful watching.

I long ago stopped commenting on threads (in /r/CFB) about the SP+ college football model because it go so, so, so tiring correcting the exact same misunderstandings about things as fundamental as what the model was even purporting to do let alone, how it worked. It is incredibly disheartening to me to see the staggering level of statistical illiteracy on display in any online conversation about a statistical model. I've come to the conclusion that it's not worth my, or any one else's time. I'm glad these things exist, and the communities who want them will self select. It's not use trying to convert haters.

The first electric motors in factories just replaced the previously existing steam engine. Power was still distributed throughout the factory through a central shaft and pullies to all the places that needed it. It took decades for the possibilities to get figured out and, more importantly, entirely new factories designed from the ground up around the idea that every machine could have it's own motor and power could be distributed via wires.

AI won't be "integrated" until something similar happens, and new businesses etc. are formed that take advantage of it in a way that can't simply be reversed to the old, pre-AI paradigm. I don't know what that will look like, but someone is going to figure it out and make successful companies with entirely new paradigms that are only made possible by AI.

At some point, every single factory was designed for electric motors, and going back became unthinkable.

-edit- also, the idea that a 5 year old tech that is still rapidly changing and developing deserves quotation marks around "new technology" is hilarious to me.

Isn't that always the case in the early stages of new technology adoption? It becomes less and less true as the new technology becomes more and more integrated.

In the first few years after electric motors became a thing, one could have said the same thing. We would have just gone back to steam. If you tried to "do without them" now, society would collapse.

So the question is not if we can do without them now, it's if we can do without them in 5 to 10 years (or however long it takes for them to be fully integrated)

Fisker may have been especially vulnerable to this (my understanding from some very brief searching is that core vehicle functionality required cloud check ins without fallback), but nothing about this is inherent to EVs (this is response to Weisenthal's tweet early in the article). An ICE vehicle could (and many manufacturers are increasingly pushing in this direction) have the exact same problems.

This is a much bigger problem that requires a bigger solution. I'm pretty intrigued by the mention at the end that several european manufacturers are collaborating on an opensource automotive software platform, although their track record on software isn't that encouraging.

Yeah they sure were bad at predictions. If only they had aggregated all their predictions and compared them to how things actually turned out in one easy assess location. That sure would have been useful..... [0]

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250306183754/https://projects....

The idea that Windows doesn't have it's own weird, mysterious, issues is hilarious to me. For months my windows 10 install would take nearly 5 minutes to start up after a full shutdown sequence. This was with the install on a fast SSD. I tried a whole bunch of things and never figured out what the issue was. Then, one day, it just....went away.

I'm not trying to make much of a point other than that: anecdotes aren't going to get you very far.

My problems with linux have nothing to do with the quality of the OS itself (which I personally haven't had many issues with), but rather with software support from companies that don't want to put the engineering effort into making their linux version as good as the windows version. And I can't really blame them, but some software I just need.

The majority of the exploits I can think of are fixed by setting the correct price. Other suggestions in this thread of denominating in bitcoin fix the other exploitation: chargebacks.

If you can think of something that isn't solved by one of those two mechanisms, I'd be interested in hearing them enumerated.

Price it right. At the right price, it pays for everything you are talking about. At an even higher price, it is basically closing the program.

I'm not trying to suggest they _need_ to implement it. Like I said, closing it is reasonable. Completely aside from any other considerations, one could just decide that they don't feel like dealing with it. But there are other options.

Closing the program is totally reasonable. However, there is another option: Make submitters pay a nominal fee that is returned in the case that a real bug is found.

I have no idea where you get this impression. Tesla is no where close to the majority (or even plurality) of fully autonomous self driving miles. Waymo is dramatically safer (less injuries, not quite enough data yet to be certain about fatalities, but they are lower than average, we just can't yet claim statistical significance) than human drivers.

I haven't seen good stats on Tesla (they are less transparent than Waymo), but it would shock me if they weren't also at least slightly safer than the average human driver. Human drivers are really bad at driving.

But even if Tesla isn't safer, taken as a whole, the self driving industry as it currently exists still probably is, purely because it's mostly Waymo, and Waymo is dramatically safer.