wavemode

What you said:

> A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day

What you're saying now:

> My mid-tier laptop GPU can crack the usual wordlist in under 12 hours against MD5 (46 billion guesses per second)

So your response to the plain mathematical fact that, no, your consumer GPU cannot crack "four random English words" in a day, is that your consumer GPU can crack four words chosen from a list of a few thousand, in a day. Followed by personal attacks. Okay.

> A modern consumer GPU can crack "four random English words" in a day.

This is just completely false.

> And before anyone blames the parents, parents will always be shitty. They are an impediment to children's health society must work around.

...huh? This is completely backwards. We should be making laws that punish parents for failing to parent properly. Not laws that punish everyone.

If we pass a law that children under a certain age may not use social media, then giving your child a non-child-locked device should be treated the same way we treat giving your child alcohol or cigarettes.

Personally I don't think that a release announcement needs to be "marketing heavy" in the first place.

That's really the heart of the problem - in an effort to sound exciting, many parts of the article are just wasting the reader's time rather than simply explaining how things work clearly and directly.

A stock exchange is nothing more than a marketplace. Anyone can start their own (the challenge being, getting a bunch of companies to want to list their stock with you).

That freedom is actually why it's hard to create a Bloomberg competitor - in order to provide their data stream, Bloomberg has to have partnerships with hundreds of companies worldwide who run exchanges for stocks, bonds and other instruments. If exchanges were government-controlled rather than free-market, there would be more centralization and getting the data together would be easier.

Yeah it's interesting how in some contexts they're interchangeable yet, culturally we very often use the words differently.

Personally I tend to feel like your second bullet - ethics are based on rules whereas morals are based on emotions.

Offtopic but, it always amuses me that the words "provably" and "probably" are one letter apart (and I frequently misread them for each other).

Probably never. This has been debated to death by both C and C++ standards committees. The consensus is that, since signed overflow is almost always a sign of a bug in the program, keeping it undefined enables compilers to optimize by assuming it never happens, and also allows sanitizers to continue to flag it to developers so that they fix their bugs (though it could be argued that, a sanitizer doesn't really have to strictly adhere to the standard, the committee apparently didn't feel that way).

It depends on the kind of company, and the context. An ethicist at a company doing drug/medical research probably mostly oversees that the company's research practices are legal and safe (and that participants give informed consent).

At typical corporation, something like a Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) would be largely focused on legal compliance - making sure company personnel aren't engaged in bribery, fraud, insider trading etc. The value of this role (and the medical example) is to prevent lawsuits and/or prosecution.

For a company like Meta, an ethicist is likely concerned with the inherent ethical concerns of running a social media company, which impacts the mental health of its users, many of whom are minors. For AI companies, the ethics of releasing models that are capable of doing dangerous things. In name, the job probably involves giving recommendations about how to ethically implement features in the platform to minimize harm. In practice, the job probably accomplishes very little.

OpenAI was probably able to at least pretend that her role mattered... until they let their AI autonomously hack a rival company, then used the incident to score marketing points. I'm not surprised she left.

> Possible false positive because of the text was translated from Japanese to English with AI?

People say this a lot, but I've never seen Claude or any other LLM insert clichéd LLM-isms into translated text.

There's obviously a degree of interpretation and "smoothing" that goes into translation, but it doesn't rise to the level of making the entire thing sound like an AI's voice. This blog post was prompted, not translated.

The federal government outlaws "knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" to obtain information from any "protected computer" (which, in this context, means any computer involved in interstate commerce - which, in practice, has been ruled such that it certainly includes any Internet-connected server of a corporation).

Your defense would have to be that you were authorized to access the data, or that you did not know that you weren't authorized to access the data. Not merely that the data was easily accessible.

The loser of every suit will simply always appeal the AI decision, thus requiring a human decision anyway.

> they ultimately launched what was by then the 7th or 8th AI-related product with essentially the same name

let me guess, they called it "Copliot"

Yeah but, Taxi drivers usually don't hop around from place to place. They work in a specific metro area.

Well (to make an analogy), nature produces psychopaths - some people's brains just aren't capable of empathy. Whether you characterize that observation as "legitimizing" or just "being realistic" is merely a philosophical concern.

> Although guarded methods seem necessary, unfortunately, I don’t know of any mainstream languages that allow their definition.

C++ has this feature. When you define a template class, you can use SFINAE (or, in modern C++, concepts) to make it so that certain methods only exist if the template parameter meets certain requirements.

(Though even this is often unnecessary - for something like your `flatten` example, you could just go ahead and define it unrestricted. Methods of template classes are typechecked lazily - in other words, they don't need to successfully typecheck unless they're called. For this specific use case, SFINAE/concepts would just make the error message nicer.)

Rust also has this feature, with conditional impls.

if the government was able to lie on the jobs report, why wouldn't they just continuously pretend that jobs are up from now all the way through the election? (all the way through to the presidential election, for that matter)

Curious what you mean by this. There is very, very little medical knowledge today that aligns with historical folk wisdom.

(Even simple things like "an apple a day" - apples are fine, but foods like berries, kiwis and avocados tend to have both lower sugar and much higher nutritional content.)

It can be both. Bell Labs performed a lot of speculative research while still producing economically valuable technology.

Like how OpenAI is (was?) structured as a nonprofit?

Plenty of companies in (or adjacent to) the AI space are still getting acquired and/or finding VC funding, even as funding in other spaces is drying up.

Meh. It does all sound rather grandiose, but in this startup economy I'm sure he can at least manage to get acquired.

At least he's pursuing something more novel than yet another "sandboxes for agents".

It's a well-made show, for sure. Expertly crafted, visually, and very well-acted. Though I found the pacing questionable - there were (generously) 6 episodes worth of plot spread out over a 9-episode season.

I see nothing wrong with this, neither in principle nor in practice. Also, this was merged over 6 months ago without incident. What is the purpose of this HN submission?

Haven't encountered "marbles in an airplane"-style brainteasers, but leetcode challenges are definitely still the norm at Google and other big tech. Not sure who was claiming otherwise.

For what it's worth, a GSL developer later reopened that GitHub issue and stated that they're going to look into fixing the UB. Sutter may have just been stating an assumption.

https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/issues/786#issuecomment-513...

> I'll raise this issue in the next internal GSL sync. I'd agree with y'all that this behavior: https://godbolt.org/z/4Tr1fe9xG is undesirable

GSL is not the standard library nor an internal runtime library. Its GitHub page claims that it supports a variety of compilers:

> The GSL officially supports recent major versions of Visual Studio with both MSVC and LLVM, GCC, Clang, and XCode with Apple-Clang

the new Windows Terminal had horrendous performance when it first came out. in the aftermath of the drama surrounding that, was when I first started seeing a lot of terminal emulator projects bragging about their throughput.

How do you define a trait that is itself generic? Like:

    trait ConvertTo[T]:
      fun convert(self) -> T;

Seems to create a single trait ConvertTo, for a generic type with a [T] argument, rather than allowing one to define separate implementations for ConvertTo[i32], ConvertTo[String], etc.