NoTeslaThrow

This seems sort of a secondary cause of our unique linguistic abilities. Afaik no other animal can use recursive grammars. Certainly not to the same extent.

Anyway this also excludes all the humans that never wrote anything, which is most of them. If anything our verbal history is our strongest and most ancient culture.

Yea but there's also not much point in critiquing the government here. What we ever been able to do about it except riot? We can endlessly discuss the failures of government and as it stands I don't think we will never see these failures distinguish candidates in the voting booth. Which is confusing, because you'd think the democrats would have wanted to win this time.

Indeed. The editorial boards of these newsrooms are often staffed with people who attended the same schools and classes as those running the country. The social circles of the two worlds are extremely closely linked.

Of course, this means that the reporting isn't very good at addressing its blind spots–i.e., most of the news in the country, let alone the world, that isn't relevant to the ivy league coastal elites. And I say this as a member of that same class. Most of the political perspectives in my life are completely unrepresented in the opinion columns, which generally tend to pander upwards rather than downwards.

I don't tend to put much weight in freedom of the press so long as that press is floating on the cream of society and asking the government permission to report on what they're doing.

What's the risk of user supplied strings? Surely you know their size. What else is there to worry about?

> Yes, it can cite sources, just like any other major LLM service out there.

Let's see an example:

Ask if america was ever a democracy and tell us what it uses as sources to evaluate its ability to function. Language really shows its true colors when you commit to floating signifiers.

I asked gemini "was america ever a democracy"? And it confidently responded "While the ideal of democracy has always been a guiding principle in the United States", which is a blatant lie, and provided no sources. The next prompt, "was america every a democracy? Please cite sources" gives a mealy-mouthed reply hedging on the definition of democracy... which it refuses to cite. If I ask it "will america ever be democratic" it just vomits up excuses about democracy being a principal and not measurable. With no sources. Etc. this is not a useful tool for things humans already do well. This is a PR megaphone with little utility outside of shitty copy editing.

Tbh, I just really hate the term "undefined behavior". It really feels like laziness in terms of what the possible damage might entail.

> It means that anything strange that happens next isn't a language bug.

This is even more vague. The language is getting blamed regardless. This makes no sense.

> A format function that arbitrarily executes code from within a format string

So, a template? I certainly ain't gonna be using go for its mustache support.

> Isn't UB a subset of bugs

No, not at all. UB can still produce correct and expected results for the entire input domain.

> I'm not even sure you're qualified to comment then.

I'm qualified to point out that this is a hugely dickish way to communicate

> If it optimizes and there are invalid assumptions then there is likely UB.

It's the distinguishing from bugs that concerns me.

Ok, but in the context of the language at hand? Presumably the IR has distinct semantics from the language that generates the IR. Does UB just strictly resolve to LLVM UB? That's very reasonable!

> resulting in an incorrect code.

Incorrect with respect to an assumption furnished where? Your sibling comment mentions RFCs—is this behavior tied to some kind of documented expectation?

> A simpler example is `Option<NonZeroU8>`, the compiler assumes that `NonZeroU8` can never contain 0, thus it can use 0 as value for `None`. Now, if you take a reference to the inner `NonZeroU8` stored in `Some` and write 0 to it, you changed `Some` to `None`, while other optimizations may rely on the assumption that references to the content of `Some` can not flip the enum variant to `None`.

That seems to be the intended behavior, unless I'm reading incorrectly. Why else would you write a 0 to it? Also, does this not require using the `unsafe` keyword? So is tricking the compiler into producing the behavior you described not the expected and intended behavior?

EDIT:

> While not as formalized as C/C++, Rust's "spec" exists in the reference, nomicon, RFCs and documentation. I believe that there is a desire for a spec, but enough resources exist that the community can continue without one with no major negative side-effects (unless you want to re-implement the compiler from scratch, I suppose).

Thank you, I was unaware that this is a thing.

> This post probably answers a lot of your reply as well: https://jacko.io/safety_and_soundness.html

This appears to also rely on "undefined behavior" as a meaningful term.

> This is a great way to see why invalid UTF-8 strings and unicode chars cause undefined behaviour in Rust.

What does "undefined behavior" mean without a spec? Wouldn't the behavior rustc produces today be de-facto defined behavior? It seems like the contention is violating some transmute constraint, but does this not result in reproducible runtime behavior? In what context are you framing "soundness"?

EDIT: I'm honestly befuddled why anyone would downvote this. I certainly don't think this is detracting from the conversation at all—how can you understand the semantics of the above comment without understanding what the intended meaning of "undefined behavior" or "soundness" is?

> Instead, initially went with the approach of hosting my dynamically updating iCal file in an S3 bucket and using ICSx5 on Android to sync with it. No CalDAV needed – just HTTPS.

Well you also can't integrate this into most calendars. I don't even know what the hell an iCal file is. I haven't even heard "iCal" in what feels like decades.

> I know I will probably get pushback over this, but CalDAV sucks.

All the alternatives are worse.

> Please run the same query past ELIZA and Gemini 2.5 (https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat) and report back.

I don't see much difference—you still have to take any output skeptically. I can't claim to have ever used gemini, but last I checked it still can't cite sources, which would at least assist with validation.

I'm just saying this didn't introduce any fundamentally new capabilities—we've always been able to GIGO-excuse all chatbots. The "soft" applications of LLMs have always been approximated by heuristics (e.g. generation of content of unknown use or quality). Even the summarization tech LLMs seem to offer don't seem to substantially improve over the NLP-heuristic-driven predecessors.

But yea, if you really want to generate content of unknown quality, this is a massive leap. I just don't see this as very interesting.

> There are no known health problems caused by this syndrome

This is a causal hypothesis framed as a statement. The rhetorics indicate an authoritative statement of fact regarding what the syndrome does cause, which is fundamentally an impossible conclusion to draw empirically.

The only hedge in the sentence is "known", which is tautological.

Of course, it's impossible to eliminate all variables, making authoritative claims about lack of causal relation impossible. But at least they could make the effort to frame this uncertainty in reasonable terms.

> What would the causal hypothesis be, "this syndrome causes no diseases"?

EDIT: but c'mon, just read the article. It's extremely bold in its claims with no evidence. "If you have short sleeper syndrome, you don’t need as much sleep as others. You can expect this to continue throughout your life." "Natural short sleepers don’t experience the same health risks as people who don’t get enough sleep." etc. I don't see any semantic difference between this and "this syndrome causes no known diseases". (or "SSS doesn’t pose any known health risks." as the actual quotation states.)

> There are no known health problems caused by this syndrome

Presumably they mean there's no evidence of this syndrome causing health issues (presumably the "known" part is redundant). Trying to position a causal hypothesis as a matter-of-fact-finding is crazy.

EDIT: that article is insanely poorly written and even worse cited. How are these websites giving super-sketchy medical advice even legal. There's no author to hold accountable, no way to remediate the quality of the article, no sources cited, and it's making statements that wouldn't hold up in a court of law.

> Their point is that it seems to function like an LLM even if it's more advanced.

So did ELIZA. So did SmarterChild. Chatbots are not exactly a new technology. LLMs are at best a new cog in that same old functionality—but nothing has fundamentally made them more reliable or useful. The last 90% of any chatbot will involve heavy usage of heuristics with both approaches. The main difference is some of the heuristics are (hopefully) moved into training.

> The Star Trek computer from TNG is basically an LLM, really.

The Star Trek computer is not like LLMs: a) it provides reliable answers, b) it is capable of reasoning, c) it is capable of actually interacting with its environment in a rational manner, d) it is infallible unless someone messes with it. Each one of these points is far in the future of LLMs.

Imagine what humanity could be capable of if we had the grace to ignore the title.

> Neither imply copyleft

The "free software" part necessarily implies copyleft.

> There is no logical reason for why GNU's jargon is somehow better than OSI's.

There's no logical reason to conflate them, either. I'm free to mock the term as I see fit.

FWIW I wiped my phone entering the country and they ushered me right through anyway. Still, I was very concerned about finding texts from other people and getting them in trouble. I think the fear is the point more than the practicality as it stands.

If the idea that seeing what the effects of the weapons sales and military operations done in your name by your representatives might be too much influence on me, a voter, then I give up. There's just no reasoning with other americans about anything. Have your country.

Sure. People who like that definition will find this sort of finding very stimulating.

I don't think intelligence is a coherent enough concept to be considered to have evolved once, let alone twice.

I'm not sure what "perspective" has to do with asymmetric warfare unless the perspective is that of how many bombs are being dropped on you.

I mean yea you can call anything hate if you squint hard enough. Reasonable terms of service are never going to satisfy everyone. You can definitely have your cake and eat it too so long as you don't try and please everyone.

> The term FOSS is meant to unify "free software" and "open source software"

I have always assumed it to mean the intersection of the two contexts. As in, necessarily copyleft.

A layperson doesn't know what copyleft is anyway; they hardly seem worth tailoring communicating for if you're not also going to explain the difference the terms encapsulate and why people might care. Just use "open source" at that point.

As far as I'm concerned the OSI doesn't have any weight and there's little reason to think we share values sufficiently for me to start caring. Do I look like a corporation trying to slap some sense of community on a product?