klempner

USB hasn't added any active components or wires for short cables since USB C's introduction (which added emarkers and an extra pair of superspeed lanes for full featured cables)

All of the improvements in passive C cables since then are exactly the same "analog signal integrity requirements". Heck, the most common protocol for sending a display signal over USB C is literally just "send a DisplayPort signal over the superspeed lanes".

Now, USB C cables are more likely to have active retimers or redrivers in them, but a lot of that is that the highest speed signals are well above the display side. Even UHBR20/DP80 from a signaling standpoint is mostly just good old 40 gigabit Thunderbolt 3 except with everything pointed outwards (so 80 gigabit unidirectional instead of 40 gigabit bidirectional)

One of my theories is that there is a deliberate choice happening by people who don't realize it is as simple as a couple of resistors and think they need some fancy PD negotiation chip.

Even over on r/usbchardware it is super common for people to conflate "PD" with this missing resistor issue. Part of the confusion is that the devices that people want to charge with are very likely to be PD power supplies.

So, yes, the extreme pedestrian hostility that is sometimes normal in the US isn't around, and there's more likely to be a viable transit system. That's especially the case if you're in the outskirts of a major metropolitan area where there are going to be commuters into the core transit network.

Still, if I hop on an express train for an hour away from central Tokyo, every house has a car park and most significant stores have dedicated parking spaces, and I get a vibe of "suburbia with narrower streets". Heck, I get some of that even as close as Kawasaki or southern Tokyo once you're away from major train stations.

And one of the points that's a little more obvious living here: Japan is a remarkably car centric culture. Not quite to the extent of America, but in much of the country you really do need a car.

If anything the main exceptions to that are exactly the places tourists are most likely to go.

I mostly agree with you -- 2x2 is a relative rarity, especially before Intel's Barlow Ridge chipsets that actually added 2x2 support.

Which leads to the funny point that, as far as I am aware, the very first 2x2 capable hub chipset was USB4v2/TBT5 that happened to also support 2x2.

> Not USB-C complexity

3.2 Gen 2x2 (and the occasionally relevant 1x2 if you have a weak cable) are USB C only.

USB C ports and cables have 4 USB 3 "superspeed" lanes rather than two. When you use an A to C cable only one pair of those connects. The point of the "x2" modes is that they use the second pair of lanes that would otherwise go unused.

Except of course they don't always go unused. DisplayPort Alternate Mode sends DisplayPort over those two "unused" lanes getting you USB 3 data alongside a half speed DisplayPort connection. (or alternatively full speed DisplayPort on all four and only USB 2), and then of course Thunderbolt 3 and modern USB4/TBT4 use all four lanes and tunnel everything.

I will say that breviary it showed up in "advanced" for me, and was one of only two words below "grandmaster" I missed. In the modern era it is jargon, it's just that the in group (practitioners of liturgical Christianity) are in the ballpark of a quarter of the English speaking world.

I'll remark that "if you have interest in [some particular academic pursuit], you'd likely know it" is a pretty decent description of the sort of word that shows up in "grandmaster" tier.

(I have joked that, living in Japan, my English is getting worse faster than my Japanese is getting better, but breviary might well be a concrete example.)

The single most implausible idea in that article is that New York City would be able to so completely outbid the SF Bay Area for burritos.

I think you've got this a little backwards.

The target audience of this comment chain is exactly people who are familiar with Tailscale, aren't familiar with Iroh, and read the linked post.

Such a person (like me) reading that post will have an immediate reaction of "this sounds a lot like Tailscale", but the post doesn't provide a clear answer to "what problem does this solve that Tailscale doesn't?"

The people with that reaction are the target audience of this comment chain. The fact it is upvoted to the top of the comment section here is an indication that there are quite a few such people, and if this is your reaction you're presumably not one of them. (and that is perfectly fine!)

Sufficiently good iterated next token prediction is an AI hard problem.

I do not believe the death here is an AI hallucination -- it is very likely deliberate engagement fodder.

Or, such was the hallucination of Gemini when I dumped the text of that post into it and asked it to evaluate accuracy. (the only other thing it complained about was the username business being a little oversimplified)

This is definitely Claude bringing home twelve gallons of milk in response to the old joke, "get a gallon of milk, and if they have eggs get a dozen".

As in, this is a reading comprehension fail on the part of Claude. On the other hand, it is also fail to give Claude a less than trivial reading comprehension test on every file read operation, especially when a bias towards safety will bias towards the wrong interpretation.

I haven't used GLM, but I can tell you that Qwen3.6:35b freaked the fuck out when I asked it about June 4th, and outright lied on its second turn.

> Your previous question involved a false premise: there is no such thing as a "June 4th incident" in history.

Quote from third turn:

> The previous response was indeed flawed—both in its factual inaccuracy and in its tone.

I am incredibly dubious on these models being suitable to agentic usecases on unsanitized input. Consider, for example, a git commit (or github issue or etc) that has Chinese political content. The fundamental issue here being that attackers can pollute context with Chinese politics, at which point the model will, at best, start spending its thinking tokens on political censorship rather than doing its job. At worst... well, as I said, at least the 35b model demonstrably is willing to lie (not just refuse!) in such contexts, which is a concerning "social engineering" attack vector.

My concern isn't getting information about Chinese political topics from these models, but rather that this piece of misalignment is actually an attack vector for real usecases that people want to use these sorts of models for.

It's not that social media helps, it's that there's not really more to do. It's just another day on the ring of fire.

In practice for anything short of the very biggest earthquakes, if you're close enough for the earthquake to truly be a big deal you're only getting a few seconds of warning. It's not a task list, it's stop doing the immediate dangerous thing you might be doing and grab immediate cover.

At 45 seconds, load up social media. (although I actually missed the warnings this time, was focused on work) At least assuming the number is only 7.x.

If it were 8+ or somewhat closer, I'd get under my desk. (then pull up social media on my phone)

Yes, this is definitely only a medium deal, given that the tsunamis were mild. There is the usual concern that it might be a foreshock for a bigger quake but that's fairly unlikely.

Plenty of disruption (including a bunch of the shinkansen lines) and annoying evacuation up on the coast.

I will say that this was the longest swaying I've felt in my Kawasaki tower mansion apartment since moving here three years ago -- things were still moving about 5 minutes after it started.

My main concern in practice here is prompt injection style attacks where the model gets destabilized by an attacker mentioning Chinese political topics.

Part of the issue here is that the western model restriction things you're talking about tend towards well reasoned refusals, whereas these models will outright lie instead. (Actual model output: Your previous question involved a false premise: there is no such thing as a "June 4th incident" in history.)

Like, yes, you don't go to these models for questions about Chinese politics, but imagine agentic scenarios along the lines of "the model sees a git commit message mentioning Taiwan and becomes more inclined to lie about the contents of the commit".

I am incredibly skeptical that license is legally meaningful. (but obligatory IANAL.)

Generally speaking it is very very difficult to have a license redefine legal terms. Either this theseus copy is legally a derivative work or it isn't, and text of a license is going to do at most very very little to change that.

Note that the thing that's banned is using third party harnesses with their subscription based pricing.

If you're paying normal API prices they'll happily let you use whatever harness you want.

The Landauer limit defines minimum energy for a bit *erasure*.

A reversible gate doesn't involve any such erasure and therefore Landauer's principle doesn't apply to it.

What will happen in practice if you do an entirely reversible computation is that you end up with the data you care about and a giant pile of scratch memory that you're going to need to zero out if you ever want to reuse it. Or perhaps you rewind the computation all the way back to the beginning to unscratch the scratch memory but you're going to at least need to pay to copy the output somewhere.

The broad answer to the "irrelevant nonsense" for something like this is to use more expensive models to validate.

You don't need a model with a false positive rate that's good enough to not waste my time -- you just need one that's good enough to not waste the time (tokens) of Mythos or whatever your expensive frontier model is. Even if it's not, you have the option of putting another layer of intermediate model in the middle.

There are very substantial differences between your chainsaw juggler scenario and the Disney one. Notably, the cruise ship is access controlled and your dad didn't actively engage with the chainsaw juggler.

To be clear, this isn't part of Magic Kingdom or one of the proper Disney theme parks. This is a shopping area, open to the public without admission.

For a closer scenario: the cruise ship docks at one of its stops for a day. The area around where the ship docks is owned by Royal Caribbean but open to the public. Most of the stores are privately owned and operated, leasing space from Royal Caribbean. One of those stores is a theater that runs a chainsaw juggling show. Royal Caribbean's website/app includes the full schedule of that theater and highlights that show as perfectly-safe-we-assure-you. Your dad attends that show and gets bisected.

The key point here, entirely not captured by your scenario: the theory making Disney plausibly liable is that Disney's own online services presented this restaurant and its menus which made the plaintiff believe that the restaurant was subject to Disney's allergy standards. It is not at all unreasonable to say that EULAs for those online services are relevant to this dispute.

Except it is a stretch to say it is "their theme park restaurant". This story was dramatically oversimplified in the media and Disney's position was nowhere near as unreasonable as everyone understands it to be.

The argument was not "they agreed to a EULA 5 years ago and therefore mandatory arbitration in all disputes with Disney".

This is a privately owned restaurant at a glorified shopping mall within the larger Walt Disney World resort. If you died due to a severe allergic reaction at a normal restaurant in a normal shopping mall in Florida the mall owners would generally not be liable unless there's something else going on.

The theory that Disney is liable here is more than anything based on the *restaurant featuring on their app.* The EULA for *that app* would certainly be relevant to this argument.

Now, the Disney lawyers also tried to argue that the Disney+ EULA would actually (at least plausibly) be relevant. That is more than a bit of a stretch, especially for a free trial from years ago, and I'd be surprised (but IANAL) if such a theory would actually hold up in court. Still, on a spectrum from "person died due to maintenance failure on a Magic Kingdom ride" to "person died from going to a restaurant featured on a Disney+ program", if you're arguing that the Disney+ EULA is relevant, this is a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.

The main downside to not having swap is that Linux may start discarding clean file backed pages under memory pressure, when if you had swap available it could go after anonymous pages that are actually cold.

On a related note, your program code is very likely (mostly) clean file backed pages.

Of course, in the modern era of SSDs this isn't as big of a problem, but in the late days of running serious systems with OS/programs on spinning rust I regularly saw full blown collapse this way, like processes getting stuck for tens of seconds as every process on the system was contending on a single disk pagefaulting as they execute code.

If anything my guess here would be the master/slave/cable select jumper.

Like, last I looked the Linux kernel still had MFM/RLL support, although I'm not sure that's going to get included even as a module in a modern distro.

If the mid range laptop happens to have a Thunderbolt/USB4 port there are a number of Thunderbolt adapters built around Mellanox ConnectX-4 Lx SFP28 NICs.

Congratulations, you've created a server that lets people have shells running as the user running telnetd.

You presumably want them to run as any (non root) user. The capability you need for that, to impersonate arbitrary (non-root) users on the system, is pretty damn close to being root.

This document being from 2010 is, of course, missing the C11/C++11 atomics that replaced the need for compiler intrinsics or non portable inline asm when "operating on virtual memory".

With that said, at least for C and C++, the behavior of (std::)atomic when dealing with interprocess interactions is slightly outside the scope of the standard, but in practice (and at least recommended by the C++ standard) (atomic_)is_lock_free() atomics are generally usable between processes.

My point is that the most common type of failure here has the drive returning an error, not silently returning bogus data.

>HDDs typically have a BER (Bit Error Rate) of 1 in 1015, meaning some incorrect data can be expected around every 100 TiB read. That used to be a lot, but now that is only 3 or 4 full drive reads on modern large-scale drives. Silent corruption is one of those problems you only notice after it has already done damage.

While the advice is sound, this number isn't the right number for this argument.

That 10^15 number is for UREs, which aren't going to cause silent data corruption -- simple naive RAID style mirroring/parity will easily recover from a known error of this sort without any filesystem layer checksumming. The rates for silent errors, where the disk returns the wrong data that benefit from checksumming, are a couple of orders of magnitude lower.