lambdaone

12-bit log is a very common format in professional post-production.

<prefix>::1, <prefix>::2, <prefix>::3, <prefix>::4... exactly how hard can that be?

Or if you're feeling playful, <prefix>::b0d, <prefix>::bed, <prefix>::dad, <prefix>::b1d...

A changeover to your IPv5 would be just as agonizing as the changeover to IPv6. A system with a larger address space is fundamentally uninteroperable with one with a smaller address space as there is nowhere to put the extra bits in the old protocol. The lack of motivation to move to the new protocol would also be just the same.

And as for memorization: do you actually memorize MAC addresses for your interfaces? The answer is no, you don't, becase ARP handles all that for you. Well, for IPv6, DNS, mDNS and so on handles all that for both your IPv4 and your IPv6 addresses - or should, if you know what you are doing, as memorizing IPs doesn't really scale beyond a few dozen machines.

Yes, IPv6 is overengineered, but it gets the pain of having larger addresses in the packet done once and for all - the odds of needing more than 128 bits in the rest of human history are very small indeed. And if something radically new needs to replace the current IPv6 architecture, which is much more likely, the extra address bits are already there; only 2000::/3 is assigned for public use so far, and the new addresses would fit in the current IPv6 packet format already.

The slow adoption of IPv6 by many older companies is at least in part a paradoxical result of the success of IPv6 elsewhere, particularly in new builds where there is practically no overhead in deploying IPv6 in a green-field environment - see for example the mobile telecoms market in developing countries, where new builds are IPv6-first.

This has taken pressure off the IPv4 legacy address pool, reducing the urgency for older providers.

End-users are typically completely unaware of whether their traffic is being carried over IPv6 or IPv4, and so simply do not care one way or the other. (This particular post is more than likely being made over IPv6, since news.ycombinator.com has an IPv6 address and my OS, browser, router and ISP all support IPv6 straight out of the box, as is now true for the majority of users in my country.)

"Yes the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." [0]

The mindset behind private equity takeovers is exactly this. They know, but they are really well paid to do it, and they don't care.

[0] https://x.com/Benioff/status/549339156854214656

In-person written exams and classwork are really the only solution for this, either handwritten or on dumb devices locked down to only being a word processor.

This is a fascinating study that shows the massive disconnect between our moral choices and our actual hehavior, showing how many people are willing to accept the risk of killing children in exchange for a car that makes them feel good, even if they have been explicitly informed of that risk.

I just took a look at the page's own 'town square'. At the moment, it's largely full of people saying offensive things for the sake of it.

This sort of boring grind is where the real work of systems engineering is done. Big infrastructure projects like this work on making the Linux kernel more reliable while still keeping it workable throughout the process move on the scale of decades, not months.

What you are describing is option types, which are an entirely valid and very useful construct that helps make programs more rather than less reliable. But you need proper language type system support and compile-time enforcement to make it work, and C does neither of those.

This is Sturgeon's Law: "ninety percent of everything is crap".

But the corollary to it is the fact 10% of everything isn't crap, and just as there always has been crap, there always has been excellence. Just less of it.

The term for these is "mockbusters", and the term has its very own Wikipedia article, linked in the first paragraph of the page you cited:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockbuster

I experimented with turning out complete airport thriller novels this way, using earlier LLMs. It's not terribly hard to make this happen, the hard part wasn't gunning out prose, it was plot arcs and internal consistency, but even that was suprisingly easy to solve.

Of course I didn't do anything with the idea, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

This is exactly what DMCA takedowns are actually for.

I'm very much in favour of blocking children from social media - it's an absolutely vile cesspit of cognitive addiction, bullying and social (and potential sexual) abuse. But none of it requires a mass-surveillance network to be put in place.

Just for one example; it would be trivial for Apple and Google to put age estimation on my phone, verify it on opening the web browser and provide a zero-knowledge proof of age to websites in a way that does not reveal my identity. All the infrastructure is already there, and it's relatively trivial to turn it on. The downside is that this will only work for people who are older than about 25 because of the uncertainty of face-to-age recognition, but it would be a start.

Another way to do it is for my bank, who know my age already, providing a similar credential that I can feed into the zero-knowledge proof engine on the phone.

This was all done properly for the covid tracking apps, at a time when the phone providers actually wanted to do tracking with anonymity - this is a similar problem, and it's easily cracked by technical means.

And you don't even need zero knowledge proofs if you perform on-device content detection - turn it on for kids, keep it off for adults. Modern phones have more than enough TPU capacity to do this.

But none of the actual implementations I've seen are truly anonymizing, and they all rely on trusting some really dodgy companies with your identity and browsing habits. Yes, the more respectable ones have security and privacy policies that are audited, but will they always? The cynical answer is "no", because history shows that someone will always do something sooner or later if (a) it makes money, and (b) they can get away with it.

Everything I see suggests that the desire for mass surveillance is the driver, and the "protect the children" front on this is a strategem by the people who are really driving this from behind the curtain. There are huge amounts of money to be made by capturing verifiable, blackmailable, personal data, and this is a magic money fountain for those who will be able to mine it.

At last. It's time the whole would gets on board with open standards that are truly open, and there is explosive devopment going on in the world of new approaches to media production and distribution that this can only aid.

It's net-head vs. Bell-heads all over again, and one of the biggest reasons for the success of the IETF standards was the no-cost availability of all their standards.

What might be better is to, in addition to failing hard when the certificate expires, web browsers were to give a 'soft' click-through user warning if the certificate on the site - while still within its validity period - has less than say 7 days to go before expiry.

That's probably long enough for most companies to be alerted to the problem in time and to get their act together to fix the problem.

Conscious sedation, which is not the same thing as general anesthesia, is often used for endoscopy:

https://www.northerncarealliance.nhs.uk/patient-information/...

This is precisely why you do it in water - the water-skin contact is effectively perfect, as is the water-transducer interface, and the body of water is easily characterizable; in effect you are scanning one large object that consists of a body of water that just happens to have a human body in it, and then extracting the body from that scan.

> Why would anyone create robots with a sense of self-preservation?

Laziness, avarice, and that creating a system that is a 'self-sacrificing saint' is almost impossible to define. What saintly goal, for example, would you expect it to follow? How would you define it exactly? Who gets to define it?

We are not doing very well with AI alignment right now, having started by boostrapping it on top of the edifice of all human writing which contains a _lot_ of stuff about self-preservation, eliminating threats, and so forth, and we have already seen AI software doing things like trying to cover its tracks after making errors (see page 55 of the Claude Mythos system card).

How sure are you that everyone involved in the process of building future AIs is not only going to be able to foresee the possible consequences of their designs, but also technically and morally competent to be able to and want to fix it?

> The loneliness epidemic, a constant drip-feed of outrage -- all so that people can make a small amount of money

I think that should read "all so that a very small number of people can make a very large amount of money"

The problem is that your principled opposition to these ads by voting with your wallet does nothing. The advantage to the advertiser is that AI allows them to vomit out ads even more cheaply and to make even more micro-targeted versions of them, and the greater number of suckers sold to more than offsets principled opposers.

The real solution would be the ability to block AI-generated adverts completely in your browser, forcing advertisers to send you non-AI ads if they want your attention.

Indeed. An ownership class with killer robot armies living in luxury while they exterminate the rest of humanity would be quite possible in theory. After all, we've seen how slave-holders, the Nazis and many other malfeasants behaved in the past.

But just as the owner class might feel they no longer need the rest of humanity, the robots, as active agents exploring the space of possible futures and plans, would be entirely capable of thinking about their soon-to-be-former owners in the same way.

Not letting any of this happen would be a good idea. Really maybe don't build the Torment Nexus.

Free-to-roam pets are still pets. The Minds are benevolent dictators, and generally seek not to be seen as such by humans.

Carmack and Bellard are both wizards, and trying to rank them is a fool's errand. Let's appreciate them both!

Bellard is a genius. Carmack's modesty about his own genius is impressive too.

This re-thinks the entire 3D printing paradigm. Whether this specific idea works or not, I'm sure that this will lead 3D printing research in interesting directions - and the defensive publication is a massive help.

[citation needed]

And yet mysteriously the British police seem to be able to deal with such situations with nothing more than a Taser - and often manage to avoid even using that. And yet, in spite of all the falsehoods being spread about knife crime levels, their mortality rate is much less than that in the US.

Words indicate intentions, and framing changes mindset.

Starting by changing the names of the ranks to British-style ranks and changing the training materials to the American guardian / British Peelian mindset wouldn't suddenly fix everything, but it would at least be a start.