ndriscoll

Well he wrote that he was deeply sorry to his family, so presumably his relationship is not as libertine as yours.

Given that the legally entitled publisher doesn't want to continue to publish it, and hasn't for many years, offering it for free does seem to be a value add? People can enjoy something they otherwise couldn't. That's value. At some point (and 22 years seems more than the proper amount to me), that legal entitlement also just becomes unreasonable even if they did still publish it. I don't see how there could be a moral issue here.

That's why we should simply normalize breaking the law. The war on use of our own cultural history is the same as the war on drugs: indefensible. Our predecessors have decided to make our government into a mockery of what it was supposed to be. So give their laws the respect they deserve: none.

Shouldn't we want anyone to make all-new Need For Speed or Final Fantasy games? Isn't more creativity literally supposed to be the point of copyright? Is Square harmed if someone makes their own story in the FF6 setting 32 years later (and even if they were, why should we care)? Or even if some random person wants to maintain an old piece of software that they didn't originally write: good!

You can of course do both: pay the protection racket money while also working to spread an understanding and build consensus/a demand for the government to crack down on major companies directly participating in fraud.

You shouldn't have to pay more than someone who is obviously committing fraud because people working at Google should be going to prison for deciding to partner with people who are obviously committing fraud.

> I want single moms to not worry about that stuff either

Uh, that's like 20% of households with children, or 25% of children (plus another 5% are raised by some other guardian, so likely also a welfare situation). That's again where we're getting into unrealistic territory (not to mention the terrible incentive). Across all of your groups, you're basically saying half the population should be taken care of by the other half.

A more pressing issue is why are a quarter of children raised by single parents? Even if they were completely taken care of economically, that's still a disaster.

I mean, technically, Blast Corps had a story (you needed to pave the way for a runaway nuclear missle to not crash and explode or something), but then you'd get medals for thoroughly destroying everything anyway, because really it was about knocking down buildings and the "story" was a silly pretense. And it was great.

Rampage and its sequels were pretty much also just "destroy buildings, the game," and also great.

My kids enjoy building with tiles and then knocking it down.

If you've ever shot a gun or detonated some explosives in real life, you'll know that's fun too despite these things being used to hurt people also.

It's more that I'd immediately ask why they don't. Obviously having some interpreter is going to make the model much more capable of context management and just analysis, so at the very least, it should be able to pipe MCP calls into e.g. a python interpreter with no IO other than stdin/stdout.

I'd rather my ISP and ad networks have harsh criminal penalties with prison time for management, engineers, and everyone else involved for tracking what sites I visit. That would be a genuinely better experience.

The problem is I don't want surveillance and I don't want to incentivize trying to distract me (the "attention economy"). "Creators" just don't want to acknowledge that much of their "content" has zero or negative value to most people, and instead claim that everyone just wants free stuff. No, I want most of these "creators" to stop creating.

Are MCP calls composable in e.g. codex yet? e.g. can a model pipe a jira MCP call to grep or sed, or at least into a file? Last I looked at MCP it was just a vastly worse version of curl, .netrc, and some short text files describing calls (which are themselves greppable). Is there anything useful beyond that that I'm missing?

In the original, the last zoom out in the final level was after 0.8 km, and you could roll up clouds (one of which comes with a god), tornados, rainbows, and eventually the landmass the game takes place on so it's just ocean.

Wasn't there a study about childcare facilities where, after a fee was introduced, late pickups actually increased? Putting a specific price on things can actually make people behave worse than just "be reasonable, please."

We left a bucket out while we were out with the kids. No issue. Had too much at the end of the night, and had to tell the last stragglers to just take handfuls when we got back. Maybe that's a good, quick temperature check on whether your area is high-trust/low-trust.

I would think that Android applications also don't really benefit from uring anyway since human-facing applications tend to not actually do all that much. Like for networking, they're not trying to process millions of connections/flows at 10s of Gbit/s. They'd be processing 1-20 flows at like a few Mbit/s. The types of processes that might benefit tend to also be relatively controlled (e.g. a database or application server).

Typical setups probably aren't listening on a public address (or any address for a desktop), so you'd at least need a LAN attacker presumably.

> The destination turned out to be a heap allocation sized exactly for the validator's cap: a 24-byte header plus the 2048-byte maximum that handler is allowed to store. Exact fit. That's not compiler tooling — no compiler infers "this attribute's cap is 2048 and the buffer is 2072."

I haven't done C or C++ in a decade, but the fact that it's always allocating a max sized structure makes it sound like they just have a struct Thing { struct Header hdr; char[Thing::max_size] buf}, and then they are just doing `new(struct Thing) `? Then elsewhere they can just check that hdr->len < sizeof(Thing::buf) or whatever.

Like this doesn't sound some like profound memory kung-fu. It sounds like they're keeping it simple (and maybe better for fragmentation anyway) by always doing the statically defined max, and then they have some (probably generic) validation layer that checks the descriptor before copying.

Like the last time I did any C++, I was playing with statically allocated object pools where the "pointers" you got from allocating out of the pool knew the pool's size and which pool they belonged to at compile time. Their runtime representation was just whatever the smallest int was to be able to index the pool. Literally nothing else. It would no doubt look like dangerous magic if you decompiled because all of the checks were compile time. This, again, was over a decade ago, and I was actually quite inexperienced at the time. I'm sure I could go much fancier these days.

Alternatively, there has never been a worse time because why bother? The model knows every language and can maintain legacy code just fine (indeed, knowing this stuff and being capable of maintenance is a prerequisite to a successful rewrite), so COBOL and JCL and random mainframe stuff is just not an issue, and a rewrite is highly likely to not be exactly the same in some important way.

On the other hand, models a few years from now will be smarter and more likely to have a track record of success with this task, so being one of the first to do it makes no sense even it had advantages.

So there's no urgency to rewrite; it's all risk with little to no reward for a problem that will probably be much easier to solve if you defer it a little longer. Like, first at least get to 100% AI automatic development for all new products/services, and then for all maintenance, so you know that it actually works.

You know that compilers can elide checks if it's a provably impossible case, right? So they could have checks in both places in the source code. Or I know that I was using static_assert in C on sizes of buffers/messages in my parsers for fibre channel firmware at IBM 10 years ago, and I'm like 99% certain clang static analyzer would do that kind of "what if this is too small" analysis across functions back then. You can also use e.g. phantom types or just like... structs/classes to enforce invariants (e.g. that it's been checked; your check four layers up could've been an inlined constructor of a trivial struct doing validation) purely at compile time. You can't infer what the actual source looks like at all based on disassembly.

Not mass consumer, but pretty well within the reach of mass affluent, who regularly spend more on e.g. a fancier car.

Depends on what "upper crust" means to you. Political class? Perhaps not. But it still offers some peer selection that's important for life outcomes for most people (e.g. lower chance of divorce).

> Disables tracking dots

> Only person to do this, creating a unique signature

What problem does 128 bits cause? Just that you don't like :: for a run of 0s? Do you need to care about ipv6 addresses in your work? Because I can tell you that when I'm trying to design simple, efficient routing and firewall rules (with e.g. 100s of thousands of endpoints across different datacenters on different continents), it's really nice to be able to subnet things the way I'd like instead of the way I must to squeeze things into the space I have, and not have to worry about backing myself into a corner later because I gave the wrong number of bits to various dimensions. And worst case, if you somehow got it wrong, just give yourself an entire /64 or more to try again, with it being compatible with what you did (no need to do a phased migration that requires reclamation as you go along).

Like I only tangentially interact with this stuff, but I can't imagine how a network operator wouldn't prefer we live in an all ipv6 world.

You can't just make up an identity, claim you have a PhD from a well-known university, and appear on someone else's (e.g. the university's) website. I asked ChatGPT:

> The author of https://vertex.degree/ claims to have a phd and taught courses. Can you find evidence from the named institutions?

And it gave me links to .edu sites corroborating the claims (e.g. he's on a registry of PhDs[0]). I asked if the institutions link to this site, and it said his personal site links to this site[1], and that CMU links to his personal site[2]. If anything it's far easier to check this stuff now. Took me 30 seconds.

[0] https://www.cmu.edu/math/grad/phd/past-recipients.html

[1] https://misha.fish/

[2] https://www.math.cmu.edu/users/math/mlavrov/

How does 192.168.0.1 talk to 192.0.0.0.0.168.0.1? Like, literally, how does it make a packet with that destination address?

The entire ipv4 space is already mapped to reserved subsets of ipv6, by the way. e.g. ::ffff:0:0/96 (i.e. 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.255.255.w.x.y.z) or 64:ff9b::/96. v6 devices can already "talk to" v4. The problem is the ipv6 space is obviously not a subset of ipv4, so v4 doesn't have a clean way to talk to or even about v6.

Well, this person claims on their website to have a PhD in math from CMU and to have taught the topic at multiple state universities. You could dig some into whether that's true, and then rely on the reputation of the named institutions if you don't know anything about them.

Just like reputation already worked. People have associations with each other. People endorse each other. Endorsements carry some transitive weight (I suppose you could use graph theory to model this). This has nothing to do with AI. Yes, Amazon is full of constantly changing "brands" with no reputation. That is different from a person or company that does have a consistent reputation that you can look up, even if you hadn't heard of them until today. Even Amazon also has e.g. Samsung or Asus if you don't want to buy AHIKJASFDIUHER.

That doesn't really answer anything though. There are tons of human cranks out there too who are perfectly willing to spend tons of time on their "theories." Humans make errors too. If you don't have a way to evaluate the source material or some endorsement from someone you have a reason to trust, then AI doesn't change that. If you do have an endorsement (e.g. Terence Tao says some AI book is extremely well done, or puts out his own book that he openly used AI to write), then why would you discard it because AI?

What do you mean "the" or "our" current system? That's entirely your interpretation, and we've always had a sliding scale of "non-authorship" from editors to ghostwriters. AI models are the same; you can use them in a heavily directed way (basically, as an editor, or in an outsourcing capacity for e.g. illustrations), or in a hands off way that you just endorse.

Well, if we're going to have the conversation: so what if it were AI? Shouldn't the question be around correctness and good pedagogy? Shouldn't the question always be about vouching for those things? If it's actually done well (e.g. they were able to generate better illustrations than they otherwise could've), why exactly should someone think twice?

The author put his name and reputation to it. If it's excellent work, it's excellent work. If it's slop, it's slop.

Assuming they allow it, post your thoughts in the language you form them in. Browsers have local translation built in now. The Babel Fish goes in your ear, not your mouth.