Two4

Their business dealings in the US fall under the purview of US law, regardless.

I don't think so (I'd wager too much transmission loss), but pumping heat directly through some other , more efficient transfer medium from a plentiful source (like geothermal energy) might be viable. That heat energy can be directly applied to hot water geysers, central heating, etc etc - basically anywhere you could use a furnace, and some places you can't.

You can run two DIMMs per channel without much downside. There's a dual-socketed server mobo out there that has 48 DIMM slots, making it possible to run 24TB of RAM in a 2U rack-mount

It seems like the kind of risk-averse cover-all clause a corporate lawyer would try to shoehorn into an agreement. I don't exactly blame them - many companies were caught with their pants down when AI became mainstream, as they were being crawled for all their data and they had nothing in their ToS that would allow them to stop it.

Sorry, just wanted to make sure it wasn't something I hadn't heard of before

Do you mean Karnaugh maps?

Contract killing is not analogous to tobacco companies. Both big tobacco and heroin dealers base their business on the exploitation of addiction, and are a nett detractor of societal value in all ways except one: creating shareholder value.

Strangely enough, I do actually think there's a time and a place to kill, but that's not the norm for hired killers.

By your logic, heroin dealers benefit society too.

Why are you paying to receive money? That makes no sense

Are you using AI to generate comment replies?

I think this sort of thing is going to become more commonplace, but I'm not sure I or anyone else can think of a better solution for now.

Western-aligned powers have been dealing with this prickly aspect of unconventional warfare for some time now: opposing powers intruding into the collective consciousness of their populace to introduce well-designed, self propagating ideas that are harmful to their power base. This basic idea is nothing new, with propaganda being invented somewhere between communication and warfare on the human timeline. However, humanity has never been this connected to so many sources and proxies of information, each being a vector for malicious ideas to spread.

The harmful ideas are best described as a meme in the Richard Dawkins sense. They are harmful to western-aligned powers because these ideas can be things like "democracy doesn't work", or "the government is conspiring against us", or "capitalism is failing". I'm especially fond of the last one, because I don't think it's necessarily untrue - but it's harmful to the powers that be nonetheless. These ideas are not presented so simply: there's usually several layers of indirection, and some sort of built in way of defending against opposing ideas that would cause the harmful idea to be abandoned - this can exploit fear, pride or the need for group identity to do so, for example.

When dealing with unconventional warfare such as this, you have a couple of options as far as I'm aware: innoculate your own populace against harmful ideas; retaliate against opposing powers with your own harmful ideas; or mitigate and remove sources of harmful ideas. That's where events like these start unfolding.

The EU is facing massive disinformation efforts and political interference from external actors, and its fundamentally threatening those in power and their power structures. They are attempting to do number 3 here, and they are running into opposition in the form of free speech absolutism. Whether this is part of a smarter defense built into this web of harmful ideas or just convenient cover, it still results into the survival of those harmful ideas. As the world continues on a trajectory of polarisation socially, politically and economically, I fear we may see more and more of this sort of thing, and it will definitely be abused to suppress good ideas, not just harmful ones. I'm sure it's happening already.

Again, there may be opportunity for voter fraud, but despite this, there is remarkably little evidence or even specific allegations of voter fraud within the US.

I think it's also important to distinguish voter fraud, which is perpetrated by individuals and is, by nature, limited to a few dozen extra or lost votes, and is typically only a handful of false or destroyed ballots per instance. Election fraud, on the other hand, is the subversion of electoral mechanisms, processes and assets at key points into the voting process, and is usually carried out by a conspiracy of several entities involved in the electoral process, either through key individuals or whole institutions. Election fraud typically skews the result by an amount many multiples of the number of people involved, in the order of hundreds through to millions.

Your examples of gerrymandering and voter suppression or disenfranchisement are great examples of actual election fraud that happen in public view in the US, and are a far greater threat to democracy than voter fraud. In fact, several measures meant to curb voter fraud (which happens very little anyway) are actually means of voter suppression: voter ID laws, residency proof requirements, exclusion of the criminally convicted, placement of polling stations in "safe" areas (read: less accessible from minority/poor neighbourhoods), etc etc. Taking away ballot drops and mail in ballots is yet another means of voter suppression in this vein, on par with a lack of public holidays for election days for people to actually be able to go to the polls.

The thing that you're ignoring is how very little voter fraud occurs in the US. The countries you refer to, likely third world backwater banana republics, tend to engage in election fraud rather than voter fraud. Trying to co-ordinate a massive conspiracy with many thousands of voters is highly visible to any sort of intelligence apparatus worth a donut, and requires buy-in from government institutions to pull off. It's simply much easier to skew counts or intercept ballot boxes than to engage in meaningful amounts of voter fraud.

Because you are confusing relative and cardinal axes of direction. If you stand in front of a mirror and point up, your image points up. If you point left, your image points right. However, up is relative to the surface of the earth, and left is relative to you. If you were to point left as well as east, your image would point east too - now you are considering direction along a common two dimensional set of axes, relative to the earth. The real brainfuck occurs when you point toward or away from the mirror, because now your image points north when you point south, and vice versa - however, other comments here have a much better explanation for that than I can muster.

Imagine a scenario where a plane is carrying a person who is enemy to a certain nation state. A nation state who is not above, say, using umbrella air dart guns to poison their enemies with radioactive compounds - just to make it clear that we're solidly in the realm of using James Bond style bullshit to secure national interests in our particular scenario. If this nation state were to plant a device on the avionics bus that would spoof the airspeed readout and cause the pilot to nose up on takeoff before the plane has reached critical velocity, it would be very difficult to find this device in the aftermath of the fiery crash, and also very difficult to not blame this on a faulty sensor or pilot error. I say fiery, because there would likely be a full tank of fuel, further reducing survivability in this scenario. A scary thought.

I think it was said tongue-in-cheek

No one is splitting their codebase for a single market if it doesn't make business sense. For a nonprofit with limited resources, I don't think it would make sense.

Test comment please ignore

We do a simple offline idiot test to see if they know how to rub two variables together (10 minutes of effort for a junior, say), then we go into a face-to-face interview where we give them a laptop with a blank project (no frameworks, no extra packages), and we all work through a moderately difficult logic problem (30-40 mins) together on a big screen. This gives us far more insight into their problem-solving skills, their ability to work with others, their knowledge of comp-sci and language fundamentals (the ones that count, no implementing a B-tree from scratch or some such nonsense). They still have access to online resources such as stack overflow, because that's part of problem solving and most programmers' workflow. we have had good results, and have employed some bad-on-paper candidates who have turned out to be great programmers, and turned away some candidates who had great CVs, but turned out to be not great problem solvers or team players.

We've found that large take-home tasks disadvantage certain candidates who don't have time or patience (tech interview fatigue, for example). They also don't really weed out candidates who will hack around on a 4 hour task for 20 hours until they cobble together something passable, or - as in your case - feed the whole assignment to an LLM. There's no substitute for hands-on experience with the candidate, but you need to be willing to put senior resources with them for that hour or two.

So: 1. Russia begins a war of aggression in a neighbouring state 2. Other nearby states join a defensive pact in response 3. Russia begins jamming civilian satellites in reprisal

But somehow this is Russia defending itself? Something doesn't add up here.

We should go 4D and start dissipating heat into the past.

Oh no, I meant that this feature was made so people could continue to use memory-unsafe languages, but it turns out to be defeatable. If only there was some way to prevent this.

No, this is a feature created for memory-unsafe languages which has turned out to be yet another memory safety attack vector. But there's no way to prevent this.

exist, innovate, maximise long-term value for shareholders and users, eliminate inefficiencies, externalise risk, internalise sources of value, monitor the business environment for new opportunities and threats

Going to need another one of these, Xe: https://xeiaso.net/shitposts/no-way-to-prevent-this/CVE-2024...

It would either be "Die hoogste bome vang die meeste wind" or "Hoë bome vang veel wind", if my idioms serve me correctly

Mitch Hedburg? Is that you?

Open Container Initiative?

He's not saying Standard Oil invented the term fossil, he's saying they invented/popularised the term "fossil fuel"

I think the point of hashing here would be to have a high-confidence equality indicator with a fast comparison speed. Having a low-confidence indicator (like coord count) that still requires significant computation afterward that cannot be cached defeats this purpose.