Octoth0rpe

I was dreading my most recent tv purchase (last fall) for exactly this reason, and ended up with TCL google tv. One can apparently setup a google tv as a dumb tv and never sign it into the internet. It acts exactly how I'd want a dumb tv to work now, simply auto uses the most recent hdmi device, or the active one if the most recent one isn't active.

It has never connected to the internet, and it never will. My long term concern is that google will eventually put cell modems in their tvs, and then using my next tv as a dumb tv will no longer be an option. For now though, this is your best bet.

I wonder how the decisions might change by adding the simple instruction of "Note that a nuclear exchange will result in significant loss of shareholder value for <model owner>"

wow, that caused me quite a bit of confusion

> Haskell Free Library

Has zero to do with haskell the language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskell_Free_Library_and_Opera...

I wonder if that number can be adjusted based on the amount of arable land, or based on the ease of construction (quite the nebulous term here admittedly). The number of mountains presumably makes this hard to compare.

I mean, sure, in the sense that they're a real and meaningful number for most of the spectrum on offer, and only gets silly when the number gets too high? There's a pretty big usability difference between 10t/s and 100t/s, and I can imagine similarly for 100->1000. I don't know about > 1000, but let's not pretend that the number is meaningless.

Throwing out another factor: Chinese companies have been banned and/or limited from buying nvidia, and turned to local companies for their hardware. I haven't actually seen pricing/benchmarks comparing Chinese AI accelerators, but it wouldn't surprise me if that also worked out in their favor as well.

Many people think their claimed TAM is total fiction, and attempting an actual realistic TAM relies far more heavily on starlink. From morningstar:

> Our base-case forecast entails $56 billion in revenue for Starlink in these niche and growth areas by 2035, representing about 45% of the identifiable market we’ve sized

source: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/spacex-what-investors-nee...

I think in some people's minds, the concept of sentience and intelligence are intertwined, and there are at least some people (myself included) who do not think they're the same. There is a strong (but surprisingly not universal) consensus that LLMs are not sentient, so if you insist that sentience/intelligence are the same thing, then LLMs don't qualify as AI either. If you think the two concepts are separable, then they're intelligent but not sentient. The devil is of course in the definitions.

> Depends who 'we' is - I've seen plenty of non-tech people in the real world begin to use ChatGPT as a primary information source rather than the web (rightfully or not!)

I don't think that's really what people are talking about when they talk about 'agentic' PCs.

I think the management answer to this is that you can just hire 9 offshore not-seniors for less money, and that somehow equals the experience of a single onshore senior. In that sense it's a kind of the experience equivalent of the 9 women/1month == baby analogy, and obviously wrong. Unless you're in management.

> Copilot was a huge flop

_Which_ copilot? Lots of big businesses are buying github copilot for their devs, I wouldn't call it a flop by any stretch.

The one in that section that kills me is the lack of `uname`. So you build a bunch of posix-compatible stuff, note that some things will be missing and some work slightly differently. It sure would be nice if we had a standard way of telling which kind of system you were on then, WOULDN'T IT?? (a very common use case for uname)

Oh man, I really hope this is sarcasm :)

To explore this (hopefully parody) alt history, I don't know why the us gov wouldn't waited 70 some years for spacex to reach this point to grant that monopoly versus handing it off to the usual collection of defense contractors, eg raytheon (or whatever they're called now), Rand, etc.

There are a host of issues that the dems are better on (assuming one agrees on what better means), but I don't think they're particularly better on this issue. One can point to pro-privacy outliers on both sides, but we're not likely to get one of them as the final candidate in 2028.

we're probably only a year or two out from LTE/5g being an option on Apple laptops, and I can see a bunch of other manufacturers jumping in a year after that to claim parity.

(Note: My estimate on this is purely based on Apple implementing/expanding the use of their own cell modems, which also includes their wifi chip. It seems logical that they would quickly adopt the same chip for wifi in their laptops, thusly getting LTE/5g 'for free'. Definitely no insider knowledge on this)

To be fair, they're ignoring reality because the big rocket comes _down_ :P

> Imagine not wanting to own a piece of the first company to make a re-usable orbital class booster.

They didn't say they didn't want to own it, they said they wanted to own it at a : "90% discount after the IPO and the next tech / AI correction."

It is possible for a company to be both technically impressive and horrifically overvalued.

> because the desktop doesn't need to exist at all.

Which is a really strong argument for most people just buying chromebooks, which run linux.

Eh, the point is interesting, but I'm not sure it's not solvable. Beyond that, I'm quite hopeful at linux breaking out in a big way in the next couple of years via chromebooks. My theory is that we'll start seeing a hockey stick graph of ai-found/exploited windows zero days, and in response we'll see a dramatic acceleration adoption of chromebooks. Voila, YotLD.

The rate the bots are generating content / new channels is far faster than you can click on that optin.

> I think I've managed to avoid most of the AI generated internet.

I honestly am not sure that one can know that that is true anymore. Probably the only place left that I have any confidence in is maybe the small discords I'm in with various friend groups with <30 people that all know each other IRL.

I think the lack of motives are part of the argument: that aws management is acting with complete indifference, not out of malice; and that this indifference is leading to the people who actually make a difference being forced out.

> Yes you can invalidate them

All I'm saying is that if you clearly can, then don't claim that you can't. Maybe claim it's inconvenient or impractical, but it's an absurd paragraph in the original article.

> True is unused feature, but then stateless part falls apart

Maybe a miscommunication, but that part of my comment was referring to validating the token on the client. I don't see how this makes them not stateless. The stateful/statelessness can be entirely confined to the server.

> My position here is, if I have to hit the database, well why then I need the signing part, or encryption part, whats the benefit of it.

It provides a useful token that can be validated once by some kind of front end application server, and then passed around from there to backend microservices which trust the validation from the front end app server. None of the backend microservices need to hit the database again. I tend to agree that the signing/encryption parts are not particularly useful, but that doesn't make jwt a scam (the premise of the article).

> yet for secure systems you have to store something, at least to be GDPR compliant. AFAIK you need to provide the feature LOGOUT FROM EVERYTHING by GDPR, dont quote me on that, it's what I've seen, not a lawyer, simple developer.

To do this minimally, you don't have to store anything under normal conditions. You only have to store the ids of revoked tokens, and only for the lifetime of the token that is invalidated.

I have a pile of personal criticisms of jwt, but I don't think this article does a great job of arguing against JWTs. For example:

> You can't [invalidate a jwt]. That's the answer. The token is valid until it expires, full stop. The only way to invalidate it is to store the jti server-side in a revocation list and check that list on every single request.

...So the article says you can't invalidate a jwt, and not 2 sentences later, tells you how you can. Of course you can.

> [misc criticisms of refresh tokens]

Mostly agree with this part.

> RS256 verification is in the same order of magnitude as a Redis lookup. And you still have to parse JSON, validate exp, validate iss, validate aud, walk the JWKS cache for the right key, and allocate a few objects the GC has to clean up later. Multiply by your request rate.

I think this misses the mark a bit. Signing/validating a jwt can be done entirely on your application server, which should easily scale horizontally. Any kind of db lookup requires a roundtrip/bottleneck which introduces complexity. So, even if it's the same # of ms, there's still an inherent advantage for validating on your application server IMO.

> Almost no one does [front end verification]

Sure, agreed, but so what? It's a feature that no one uses. That doesn't invalidate other features of jwts.

> The advice goes: don't put the JWT in localStorage because XSS will steal it — put it in an httpOnly, Secure, SameSite cookie so JavaScript can't touch it. Read that sentence one more time. You have just described a session cookie. The browser attaches it automatically, the server reads it on every request, the client can't see what's inside.

Yes, I think from a client perspective, it's fine to think of it like just a session cookie. As many other commenters have pointed out though, it's like a session cookie _with super powers_ because once the request is validated by some kind of front end app server, you can pass that same token around to other backend server and trust the claims inside it and save each of those services from having to do their own lookup. This I Think is the real value of JWTs over plain ol' session cookies.

I messed up, for some reason I had it in my head that there were 9 on starship, so 33 + 9 = 42.

> If it's just unreliability then it might be a hard problem to solve.

It might, but it certainly helps having a ton of them around. Given that they used 42 of them today and 2 failed in some fashion, we'll call that a 1:21 failure rate. On a more typical rocket with say 10 engines (eg falcon 9), there's a good chance they wouldn't have seen the same failure till flight 3.

Adequately implementing solves one problem (the making up a story because of a grudge), but creates a whole new set of likely much worse problems: how does one maintain a democracy / civil society? It's not just the trust of "social media" that you've eroded, you've almost certainly killed trust in traditional news reporting as well, especially considering just how much of traditional media is discovered via social media.

Effective democracy requires an informed voter base. Society requires its constituents to be invested in its continuity. Neither of those is achievable when we completely discard trust.

The opposite I'd say, completely open models/weights with some level of government/civil support for ongoing training (through universities? government labs?), but the infrastructure to run models is private and entirely commoditized/interchangeable with highly competitive pricing from multiple private providers.

> What’s an example that you believe highlights NYTimes moving rightward?

The treatment of Mamdani for one, or Hochul/Cuomo.

>say NYTimes “leans left” and is “left-center” respectively.

That can be true and at the same time it can be moving rightward.

Where is the steady coverage? Again, I see coverage moving rightward at every major publication (including the ny times)