_flux

Which AI tools generate hidden unicode? I just pasted a random response from Gemini and ChatGPT to it and they did not have any.

Supposedly Anthropic now has watermarking, but as I undestand it, it's not done by inserting hidden unicode characters.

They could (..and probably will..) store that version and then refuse the check if this attack is detected, i.e. the version is too close to a known LLM output.

Alternatively they could also just keep saying "yes" if it's close enough to a version that was close enough.. Although that would enable the attack to allow arbitrary text to be "proven" AI, by slowly morphing close-enough generated material to the desired text. But perhaps this is not a problem they are not concerned with.

To satisfy the letter of the law I expect it's enough to just provide the oracle, without any mitigations.

I don't think any web browser is able to make use of WebRTC metadata tracks.

This would be quite nice as a VST/CLAP for music production!

Have you heard the expression "10x developer"?

Amazon Rufus has been mildly successful for me. I think the failures I've experienced with it are mostly because the product I'm looking for doesn't exist in the catalog.

Ocsigen and Eliom were started 2005 and are pretty similar, although I can't find any well-known projects using Eliom :/.

Presumably this has learned some lessons from it, so it's probably better.

I've created bug reports to open source projects that have related files in my repo. Then I can just list the reproduction instructions like:

1) arrange xxx, such that yyy.. or git clone this repo where this is set up. 2) ..

I thought that might have been quite helpful not just to the person I'm sending the bug report to, but also to myself when I need to evaluate if the bug has been fixed.

I guess it's a bit popular right now

    * Error 17 at Welcome.fst(24,0-28,30):
      - Could not start SMT solver process.
      - Command: ‘/home/site/wwwroot/fstar/bin/z3’
      - Exception:
          Unix.Unix_error(Unix.ENOENT, "create_process", "/home/site/wwwroot/fstar/bin/z3")
    
    1 error was reported (see above)

My view is that Java's checked exceptions failed in big part because Java didn't have type variables back then; after all, polymorphic Result types are not that much different from checked exceptions.

I haven't written any Java since it has gained those, so I suspect there might be other aspects making it awkward. And it still would lack exhaustiveness checking that e.g. Rust has.

..for the very little number of people who use them?

Arguably it would be highly preferable compared to the option of not being able to use them at all.

I thought though the idea is that you cannot learn anything from the ciphertext, how it is processed, or what the final result is?

Unless you are a participant of the computation and you have the key, that is.

I can see that it would be difficult to make changes to db schema types, if there are multiple separate applications with their own release schedule. But this affects schema structure as well, not just its types. I can't even describe how difficult it would be to write apps that work in that scenario—and test it against data that could be written into the db by any previous version of the app. If you truly have this kind of situation at hand, perhaps a document database would be a better fit.

Additionally, how often are there multiple apps with different release schedules written using Sqlite? I would expect overwhelmingly large number of its use cases would be a single application working on it.

The conversions seem to use (sometimes?) unsafe blocks.

Definitely mypy keeps my sanity in a relatively large Python project I'm working on :). But I don't believe Python actually assigns any meaning to them, and at times mypy and e.g. pyright may disagree on what the types actually are.

There's a school of thought that consider the term "types" reflect to the properties that exist in programs even before they are run, as in they are a property of the programs themselves, not their state at runtime. This thinking—which is also what type theory talks about—does consider Python untyped: reading a Python program along with its specification, you are not able to assign types to each expression.

But what Python does have is tagging: when you create an object you tag it, and then whenever you operate on those values, you check the tag and maybe raise an exception or not. This is happening at runtime.

Strongly typed and weakly typed do not seem to have good definitions. A good one I've read is that "strong typing describes the typing you like".

It is great though if people go to the same extent as you to define what they are talking about, as this reduces the chances of misunderstandings. But it should not be taken as fact that the definitions you have chosen are the universally accepted ones.

Could have used bigger font.

You might not be able to express the ownership in the way that can be checked statically, so quite possibly this would then be downgraded to a runtime error (that could be handled with a panic)—but not undefined behavior.

I wonder how many of the Linux the LPEs are related to drivers, which I understand there are more of..

On one hand it's nice how it's clean and commented, but on the other hand some golfing could have made the encoded block a lot more reasonable to actually manually enter.

It could use array microphone to detect that the sound originates from the driver's seat (in addition to using it for filtering out not-from-driver's-seat sounds).

Paraphrasing: if I don't write the codebase [but someone else does], I don't write the tests, and other team members are modifying it, what even is considered a messy codebase?

I actually don't see a connection between the mechanism used to create the code and the code messiness. Things like code repetition, incorrect level of abstractions, tests testing only tests themselves, using too smart optimizations for things that don't matter, .. These all can happen in both person- and machine -authored code.

I would be surprised if a professional software developer has never seen at least some aspects of messy codebase in most any large project. The difference can be whether this messiness ever managed, or just piled on.

Does Alibaba only have developers in the China?

Wouldn't it then be reasonable to focus on those many features, instead of storage? I would enjoy using with S3, as expanding S3 storage is easier than expanding the storage of a virtual machine: usually it happens automatically.

Of course this topic has been discussed: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/1683

You can't assign the copyright to Emacs either, yet it can be used to produce software.

Works for me (TM). Maybe you lost CDN-lottery?

Yes, but one only needs to write it once, and then everyone could use it. It could probably even be packaged as an official Debian package.

Hmm, I perhaps didn't quite catch this. I thought having a generator would let you be less committed to it, as you wouldn't need to manually write all the init scripts you need.. ?

My /usr/lib/systemd takes 6.4 megabytes, so I think I could live with that overhead. Or I suppose just delete them manually.

What would actually be useful would be a generic OpenRC wrapper that would ingest those service files and provide traditional start/stop interface for them.

Devuan us a separate Debian with its own repositories (and presumably many packages patched to improve systemd-less life), while this is just replacing Systemd with OpenRC on a Debian system, while keeping Debian repos etc.