I am utterly fascinated that you copied and pasted section 1201 and then replied as if the string which, you, copied, contained § 512(h) instead.
What happened here?
18,419 karma · joined April 24, 2010
working to liberate literate programming for the median developer.
What happened here?
Guess we'll never know.
For those of you who haver never slid a slide rule, here's the part that makes this anecdote make sense: they're a mechanical logarithm, this allows one to do multiplication as addition, but there's a catch: you have to know the "characteristic", that is, the order of magnitude of the result. The slide rule won't tell you that.
They argued that this requirement leads to an intuitive grasp of magnitudes, which is of real benefit to the discipline.
And they were correct. However, engineering is, by all appearances, doing just fine.
Where they erred, and it was a natural mistake to make, is in assuming that pedagogy must recapitulate phylogeny. That engineers should start with the slide rule, just like the profession did, and then graduate to the calculator, just like their professors did.
But this is wrong. It makes the slide rule an impediment: a known-to-be-obsolete object, standing between the student and graduating to the device he or she knows, full well, is what will be used for the rest of his or her career.
Instead, teach the concepts and the foundation with the modern tools. Then, senior year, in addition to the thesis project, teach "OG" engineering: slide rules, graph paper, mechanical pencils. Along with the thesis, which should stretch all the skills already mastered to their limit, require a feat of engineering which is within the student's capability, but: no CAD, no calculators.
This would actually work. This gives them an opportunity to find out what they're missing, build some of that order-of-magnitude intuition, really solidify what a "sketch" in CAD is all about, all of it: and understand that any force multiplier can be a crutch, if you let it.
I've been just delighted with what I can accomplish in "centaur mode" with LLM agent assistance. I've made real progress on longstanding research topics. But to do so, it's essential to never let them be a substitute for one's own understanding. They turn out to be really good at explaining difficult passages in research papers!
My gloss on what's happened with LLMs in mathematics (understand, I am not a mathematician), is that we're discovering that solving conjectures is just not that important. Not the first time this has happened: simplifying and manipulating algebraic equations was very important, and then, it wasn't.
Making conjectures, that's where the action is. Always has been. No one thinks that solving an Erdős conjecture puts one in the same rank as Erdős Pal, because it doesn't.
When the first mainframe computers came along, there was a brief flurry of conjectures, some of them longstanding, which were either proven or disproven by brute exhaustive search. What's happening now is different in magnitude, and even in kind: but more in magnitude than in kind.
It wouldn't be fitting to be glib about the disruptive effect this is having, and perhaps (although I don't think so) we'll cross some threshold at which it doesn't even make sense to contemplate humans doing authentic intellectual labor. That would be bad. If you think that's on the horizon, you're right to be upset about it; I don't, but I won't try and persuade you otherwise, because the point is far from obvious, and both of us are predicting the future, which is known to be a risky business.
The "publish or perish problem" which this new development surfaces is not new to this development. The entire concept is well past its sell-by date, and while mathematics is perhaps the intellectual pursuit least corrupted by the dog-and-pony show, it is and has been undignified, inhumane, and always to some degree dishonest. Time to come up with something better.
Thanks. For me that's the conclusive piece of the puzzle: this is a work, not a shoot.
YMMV. I learned what I came here for.
Fairly pleasant in Zig, through abuse of @fieldParentPointer and a pinch of comptime.
https://github.com/mnemnion/zelda
It was a little nicer in the `usingnamespace` days. So it goes.
> The elements can be allocated on the heap, on the stack, in a global array (like "initholes" in the article), in a special arena, etc.
An "etc" worth mentioning specifically is a memory pool: they're useful for any same-sized struct which gets recycled a lot, but for linked lists there are further advantages. You don't have to cast the object to bytes and declare a link pointer, since it already has one: not really an advantage, casting is free, but: if you can arrange to give both sides of the list back, then recycling can be done on a per-list level by prepending the whole thing to the freelist.
The question is the wrong one. The right question: why aren't frontier models designed to work that way? The answer: it's slow and expensive.
The other answer: that's basically what you're selecting with "Medium", "High" and so on, how many tokens they'll blow on muttering to themselves before they get back to you with an answer. There's more to it, but not that much more.
He collects metals. Made of men.
So "lifting ideas from other engines", as you yourself put it, is entirely licit, no matter how you do it. _Should_ you credit others when so doing? I err on the side of yes, on that question. _Must_ you? No, there is no such requirement, this is not academic publishing. Does it constitute violation of license? Absolutely not. Straightforwardly, no. Furthermore, it _should not_, we would not like the result of that.
Think: SCO suing Linus Torvalds over his use of a.out: and winning. It would be bad. Even though I understand the reasons for it, it's still eerie to me to see hackers coming down hard on a side of an issue we spend decades passionately defending the other side of.
As I lead this post with: maybe there's something in the repo which is infringing, it's quite possible that commit doesn't tell the whole story. If so, keep in mind that I don't know that, and am able to change my opinion in the face of new evidence.
Based on what I _have_ seen, no: you do not get to lock down a bit-packing pattern just because you're the first to come up with it. Nor should you have that right.
[0]: https://github.com/adamtwiss/coda/commit/cd170a4ea9993cf8246...
I also have a 3D printer. I also have a ChatGPT subscription, and some OpenSCAD chops. I came up with a part which would go into the top of the down tube to the drainage pump, and mostly-seal the down tube itself, with an opening on the side to vacuum out the moisture. This was purely prooompted, I took some measurements, printed bits of the part, refined the shape, and you know what?
It works! I can stick it down there, turn on the (very loud) wet vac, and go upstairs. On a 1.5Ah battery it sucks for a bit less than ten minutes, which turns out to be plenty of time.
So: who made that?
Don't care. I'm waking up warm at night.
Also: me, obviously. ChatGPT doesn't have a fucking furnace.
This is division of labor, and it's a good thing. I'm sure OpenAI employees, who are very well paid, donate some money from their salaries to others working on the areas you're citing: probably more than you think, I say that from having attended some EA parties back in the day.
But that isn't my point: my point is that a company which makes brushless motors should put most of its time and money into solving the "make and sell brushless motors" problem, and if they or their investors feel like they need to do more for the world, give money to the people who have the time and ability to do things about that. There are a lot of quality-of-life improvements which need brushless motors.
Next question is how useful their product (OpenAI, I mean) is to more focused do-good-in-the-world professionals. I'm sure that varies quite a bit. For getting the homeless off the street? I conjecture, not very useful. For 'complete the transition off fossil fuels'? Extremely useful, no one in that field knows how to do their job without AI in summer 2026. I'm certain of this.
Powerful word, `if`. "You're not only wrong you're a fulminating psychopath" is a perfectly valid response to getting it wrong like a fulminating psychopath.
The only people who have a need to judge the quality of the report (not aesthetically, I mean) are those few who know enough about the subsystems of the kernel it implicates to do something about it.
My point: does it lead to a bugfix? Good. No? Bad.
Do you have an answer to that question? I believe it's a bit early, no?
Translation: if this nails-on-chalkboard LLM spew identifies a kernel bug, which is then patched, its aesthetic qualities do not interest me in the slightest.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
This is not cool. Please don't do it again.
Literally, welcome to: Hacker News.
It's always been like this.
Because if a club had a prominently posted rule "no shit on the soles of your shoe", I would not be asking "Well, how much shit is on the soles of my shoe?"
I would be asking, "How likely is it, that I'm going to get a couple drinks in me, and then get cornered by frowning men who need to inspect my shoe soles for shit traces? How would I feel after passing the no-shit-on-shoes challenge?"
Then I would find another club.
There is a longstanding distinction between expression (copyrightable) and facts and ideas (not copyrightable). Nor is this merely used as a binary category: the degree to which a work rests on facts and ideas, versus expression, is very much taken into account when considering the question of infringement.
Classic cases involve works like maps and biographies, versus works of pure fiction. You can surely see how the expression of the former is constrained in ways in which the latter is not.
The algorithm to reverse a binary tree is not subject to copyright. Nor is a court likely to accept the use of "left" and "right" as variable names as evidence of infringement.
They would treat the cases differently because the cases are different.
My opinion has always been that copyright law is an awkward fit for software, and remains so. That said, the iteration and edit cycle which is normal to agent-driven software development, has a rather different character than the more normal 'workflow' for art, which is: "drawing of Asuka eating an elote in front of the Chinese Theater" then picking the one the user likes the most.
There's also the realpolitik to be considered: courts are simply unlikely to shut down the use of LLMs in software development, that horse has left the barn. There's always some margin between 'can' and 'will'.
> BY L. J. LANDER AND T. R. PARKIN
> A direct search on the CDC 6600 yielded:
27⁵ + 84⁵ + 110⁵ + 133⁵ = 144⁵
https://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1966-72-06/S0002-9904-1966...
It is a conjecture whether grinding it out on Lean is a difference in kind, rather than degree. I say degree. But it remains to be seen.
The English Rule has several variations by jurisdiction, you'll find a handy map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)
In England (where pounds come from) costs are not always rewarded, but very frequently, they are: and it's actual costs, not some fixed fee. A litigant who spends more on solicitors indemnifies the loser accordingly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law#What_can_...?
Perhaps you live somewhere where this is not the usual basis. Perhaps you just felt like being rude online. We'll never know.
At least when you get to the first section, "USB 2.0 Signaling Over Type-C".
Sue someone who can spend millions of pounds (for the sake of argument) on defence? Better be certain you can win... against someone who can spend millions of pounds, and probably went to the same public school as the judge.
In America, legal fees can be awarded as additional damages. We should do it more than we do. But given those two options? I'm on Team American Rule, 100%
Scenario B: A program writes machine code in an executable region of memory, and the code has a memory vulnerability. That's bad, and the reason it's bad: attacker-controlled data can potentially trigger this vulnerability, which could even lead to privilege escalation.
Scenario C: A program write machine code to disk, which is then read into memory and executed. That's bad, and the reason it's bad: attacker-controlled data can potentially trigger this vulnerability, which could even lead to privilege escalation.
If I have a great meal every time I go to a restaurant, that chef is reliably good. I do not require that the tomatoes on the salad be of identical number or placement, or cut along the precise same bias. Nor would I count the sesame seeds on the bun.
Are LLMs reliable by that standard? Sometimes yes, for some tasks. The envelope of tasks for which they're reliable is continuing to grow.
You've come a long way, RepRap.
...because the USA made it into the knockout stage. really scary stuff