I may be biased as a Debian user, but if Ubuntu now reacts slower than Debian this may push some people to reconsider their choice.
9,989 karma · joined November 4, 2013
I may be biased as a Debian user, but if Ubuntu now reacts slower than Debian this may push some people to reconsider their choice.
Antibodies don't have to bind only to proteins, it could be some lipid, carbohydrate, any molecule big enough. Most of the time it's some protein, but it's not an allergy proteins in general.
https://github.com/php/php-src/security/advisories/GHSA-w8hw...
https://github.com/php/php-src/security/advisories/GHSA-6wmf...
This leaked yesterday in part because so many people had advance notice.
My point is more that as a user of a high-level library like reqwest, I'd like to talk safer defaults when root CAs are in use
Am I missing what you mean by monitor?
Anthropic is barely doing the minimum to keep Claude's writing tics bearable to read.
And, well, neither of us really knows the ground truth. Maybe the guy who has a repo filled with articles co-authored by Claude is actually not posting slop this time and HN users are wrong and Pangram flagging it is just a false positive. But I can't blame anyone for being tired of giving this the benefit of the doubt.
I'm ESL. The mistakes I make are part of what makes me human. If HN'ers are having an allergic reaction at the first hint of slop, it's because we've been drowning in it for months.
(The NIST SP 800-63 Standard Password "Fall2026!" also works, but it's less efficient, and changes every quarter!)
They're doing RL on open problems these days, not just next token prediction.
A file is held open read only by a process, and then you delete the file. Under memory pressure and without swap, can Linux evict those pages to reclaim memory?
So this would risk turning a compile-time error into a runtime error.
Now I'm not saying AI can't write ASM. I'm saying that compilers have a hard job. They output bad assembly, because the task is difficult.
The absolute number of lifetime downloads can of course only go up (but that's even more vacuous).
I'm saying it's variable, not that cheating can disappear completely.
In other words, utopia is fictional, but that doesn't mean the real world couldn't be better.
But I think it's just that this file is lifting parts of the logic from PAQ8 (the inlined num_states/next_state named in a comment sure look exactly like PAQ functions translated into C, which, kudos to PAQ for having extensive comments in their code by the way).
I'm a bit disappointed that PAQ isn't mentioned in the README, and only very obliquely in the code, if that's where those functions come from. PAQ is GPLv3, at least a mention could have been nice (assuming I'm not wrong about the source of that logic).
I like the code style, this is pretty nice C. It's refreshing to see human code.
They seem to say they'll accept the outcome and pledge to engage in good-faith. Which is the only correct response, really, so time will tell if these words are more than generic PR.
(As far as I know you only have to sign any kind of formal documents if you have one of the few roles (as a non-employee) where you may have access to sensitive personal data, which is very few people.)