ibejoeb

> Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum..., among literally hundreds of other instances claiming the election was stolen, rigged, Russianed, whatever.

No, not at all. The implication is that the organization is dictating the software that employees are to use. There's nothing unusual about this.

Well there you go...

It sounds like Varnish Cache is kind of a distribution of Vinyl Cache. It's based on the FOSS project with its own downstream patches.

On another topic:

> The Varnish Cache FOSS software was initiated and sponsored by the Norvegian newspaper Verdens Gang. They hired a company called “Linpro” to handle the logistics and me to write the code.

> From Linpro grew the company Varnish Software

> IP-Lawyers still insist that Varnish Software owns the Varnish Cache name

Consultants came in a just assumed the IP? It sounds like a pretty complicated cross-border ordeal, but that is still quite a leap.

> how exactly do they plan on enforcing all of this?

Video selfies and government document upload on hardware attested phones, of course.

Didn't know that about Epic. Fair point.

Right, if you rename a file and then change its content without committing it, it doesn't know. Clearly that's bad practice in a multi-user setting because you're going to break all subsequent merges.

However, if you just move or rename a file, git does recognize that, and it doesn't require any manually annotation.

Lore needs you to tell it that you're moving or renaming. It's not the end of the world, but it's a real pain if other tools are operating on the file. You will need to go back and manually annotate those operations if you want it to preserve the relationships.

Git does record the move, and you don't have to use the git ui to do it. Lore says it requires `lore stage move` to record it. More details in the reply to your other comment.

I'm not a gamer so I'm entirely ignorant of the situation. What's the root of your objection? The games are proprietary, right? So I figure it's not a Stallmanesque position. Is it a big problem to run games on Windows?

Locks: https://epicgames.github.io/lore/faq/#does-lore-support-file...

GUI: https://epicgames.github.io/lore/faq/#does-lore-have-a-deskt...

The unique feature is universal locks (like cvs checkout) for opaque binaries like art, which requires universal state, so this seems to be orthogonal to the goal.

I think they're saying the opposite. It won't detect a filesystem-level move. It will simply record a delete and create without the relationship. Git does record the rename, though:

    ~/work/tmp/repo   git init . --quiet
    ~/work/tmp/repo master  echo 'foo' > foo.txt
    ~/work/tmp/repo master?  git add .
    ~/work/tmp/repo master+  git commit -m "create" --quiet
    ~/work/tmp/repo master  mv foo.txt bar.txt # no `git mv`
    ~/work/tmp/repo master*?  git add .
    ~/work/tmp/repo master+  git status --porcelain
    R  foo.txt -> bar.txt
    ~/work/tmp/repo master+  git commit -m "rename"
    [master a06c680] rename
     1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
     rename foo.txt => bar.txt (100%)

Git knows that the file was renamed even without using git to do the rename. This means that it doesn't matter if you IDE, codemod, agent, or whatever does it. Git tracks that foo.txt and bar.txt refer to the same blob at different revisions.

Maybe lore does the same, but the docs imply that it doesn't.

--

To summarize: lore will record relationship metadata only when performed with `lore stage move <from> <to>`, so you will have to intervene if your other tooling moves files.

I don't think so, but I'm not sure. It seems to imply that renaming a file without using `lore stage` subcommands will record a delete and an add, meaning that changes made in a branch prior to the rename won't automatically propagate. Git will detect this without using it's own mv command.

I don't know if it's a jab at git. Git does have `porcelain` to accommodate programmatic interaction. It's not linkable, but it's still an API.

> lore stage covers adds, edits, and deletes — you use the same command for all three. Stage a deleted file and Lore records the deletion for the next commit. Moves and renames are tracked too, through a dedicated subcommand: lore stage move <from> <to> records the rename so the file keeps its identity and history across the move instead of registering as a delete plus an add.

Oof. So this isn't compatible with any tools that move or rename files. I can't see how this will be acceptable for real-world use.

Wow. Lede well buried. I thought I got the story, but after a while I started scanning over all the edge and missed that actual story. I really though we were complaining about spending $5 to retrieve data that had been stored for years at no cost.

Pretty seedy move. That, and what appears to be the dark pattern of prompting for payment first, then ultimately allowing export after refusal.

Correct. Some states have broad stop-and-identify laws. Some have limited stop-and-identify laws.

What we're talking about is more specific than that, and other statutes are implicated.

If you were operating a vehicle and cop pulls up next you and casually asks about your day, then you don't have to identify, because that's a consensual encounter. If he suggests that you rolled through the stop, even if you didn't, then you're subject to things like implied consent that are attached to vehicle operation.

But not all Terry stops are traffic stops. The case you're citing wasn't a traffic stop.

Hiible wasn't operating a vehicle; he was standing outside, near it. It was not a traffic stop.

And just for clarity, a Terry stop is any brief investigative detention, not just those that arise from traffic stops.

I agree, depending on how much of this is marketing and how much is actual capability. It's one thing to undercut models that finish writing assignments for lazy students. If this actually identifies vulns and writes exploits, or if it designs bioweapons, those are pretty different. Those are actual weapons, and I don't think they're going to arm the adversary.

>Seems like GPU drivers are cyber weapons

They kind of are, at least in the AI race.

> weapons of math destruction

lol. great, whether intentional or not.

The frontier labs now have every reason to hold back and sell only to their preferred trading partners. I don't really like the new arbiter-of-knowledge system we're barrelling toward.

Ah, you're probably one to ask. They say "queries on some topics will instead receive a response from our next-most-capable model, Claude Opus 4.8." Are they transparent about when that happens, and is it priced at the rate of the underlying model?

I don't think China has any incentive to arm the rest of the world with highly capable models that can be used against them. Undoubtedly they will continue with the arms race, but they will preserve the best stuff for their own use.

You may have bought the sim card but never activated it. It's not the device itself that is restricted, just using it.

It has been like that for at least 8 years, and probably longer. There are still stalls at airports, but you must provide ID.

From https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-stop-childre...:

> Despite [iphone age verification] children can still take, view, share and save nude images. The government therefore wants Apple and Google to block nudity across the whole device by default, so they can only be deactivated via age assurance.

We tolerate the systematic child rape and run cover for the perps, but teens sending n00dz is a bridge too far. It's time for the UK to nut up and start holding these kids accountable. This works well, too, because it's deactivated on the devices used by adults, so they can continue to view their child porn, I guess.

Is there another reading of this?

The author points out that disabling smart features and personalization also disables message categorization, so you wind up with a different inbox, while disabling individual features doesn't disable the most annoying behaviors.

I think the real risk here is the impact of perfect enforcement of all the tiny things. Enforcement against every minor unsanctioned activity can be self executing with AI. You're going downhill at 10 MPH over the speed limit before you brake, and the camera, if not the vehicle itself, cites you. You cross the street outside of the crosswalk and now you've got 2 strikes. There's nothing to contest, because you acted unlawfully.

Apparently mosquitos don't really migrate. They get migrated by wind, but otherwise they stick to a relatively small radius. The idea with these is that you can reduce the hyperlocal population, like in a patio area. I use them on my property. It's not a silver bullet, but I can spend most nights outside without being overwhelmed as long as I maintain them.

>any trades after a market has concluded but before it is officially resolved should be voided

Is that not how it is? I'm not really following the thread. So is polymarket paying out on the initial position, i.e., the one taken before the window closed, and not on the position after it was a foregone conclusion? Or was the whole position reversed?

--

OK, on rereading, it seems like the polymarket stance is that the confirmation was not available by the deadline. Fine. But the whole "resolved to no" doesn't make sense. Leaving aside the after-the-fact bet, this is just a terrible structure. The whole thing should unwound and everyone who participated should be reverted.