wavemode

If all you're doing with a bunch of cash over 18 years (!) is holding it in a bank account to collect interest, you're just losing money to inflation. Bank interest is almost nothing. Better to hold stocks, or at the very least bonds if you're extremely risk-averse.

Though this needs to be put in context - maybe you actually intend for the child to be permitted to spend the cash, in which case a bank account makes plenty of sense.

Bad faith, got it.

I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you just don't actually understand anything I've been saying.

> Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.

...huh? What solitary point of evidence has even been presented? First it was pointed out to me that I'm not a psychic, which is true but is not evidence of anything. Then it was pointed out to me that seatbelts save lives and contraception prevents pregnancy, which are also true statementsnbut are also not evidence of anything, given that both are highly effective at what they do.

If you want to present evidence of something, why don't you start by presenting evidence of this:

> Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually.

Let's start with, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness? Then, let's move on to, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness and was released to the public despite there already existing a 99% effective prophylactic drug for the same disease? And what was the outcome there?

If you still don't get the point I'm making, then nothing will change this and we should just end the exchange.

No, I'm not talking about moral hazard at all. I'm just talking about the poor effectiveness. If it were highly effective, like PreP and birth control are, there would be no issue in my mind.

> Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives.

Okay? This seems unrelated. A better analogy would be if they had invented airbags and then people stopped wearing seatbelts. (like taking a 44% effective vaccine and then stop using PreP)

> Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies.

Also unrelated. Birth control is highly effective, and in fact is statistically more effective than condoms (since condoms can slip and/or break). My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine.

The target audience of this doesn't appear to be people who don't like reading the news. But rather people who like reading journalism that has perspective and nuance (which tend to improve when you take your time to let a story fully develop before writing about it).

The epistemic modality of my statement was implied. I obviously don't know the future.

No, but it should only last 10 years or so. Copyright in general is good as it provides economic incentive to produce new creative works. But copyright lasting or exceeding the length of people's lifetimes has done more harm than good to society. By that time, you have long since passed over from incentivizing creators, into enabling rent-seeking corporations.

Kotlin seems to have eaten Scala's lunch, for many organizations in the "JVM-but-not-Java" camp.

Also, non-backwards-compatible language changes fragmented the Scala ecosystem. Combined with the general trend of functional programming hype somewhat dying down in recent years.

It will have the opposite effect, if people who get the vaccine start behaving as though they are 100% protected (which, many people will).

hello fellow Robert Fitzgerald-ian

I think it's fitting that a story that was originally an ancient poem, should sound ancient and poetic.

Correct

You're confusing translation and interpretation. A compiler is merely translating your code into a lower-level form. (There is a degree of heuristic-based interpretation that goes into generating good code, but the code's observable behavior is not allowed to change.)

But an LLM has to interpret your words and make judgment calls about the logical details, which is a very different thing. An LLM sufficiently intelligent to make acceptable judgment calls in all situations (acceptable enough to ship to production without human review of those details) would likely be indistinguishable from AGI.

> We’re launching a new iteration of Sprites, and focusing the company on them and the problem they solve. And I’m tagging in Scott Johnston as CEO.

Hard for me to see this as anything other than fly.io committing suicide. AI sandboxes are a crowded product space, basically a complete commodity at this point, and the new CEO will likely focus on profit to the detriment of creative vision.

Happy to be proven wrong though.

I don't mean that to say that anyone outside the US is suspicious. Just that parent commenter might be from one of a set of countries that tend to be flagged as suspicious. (But I did not want to directly ask him where he lives.)

Are you outside the US? And/or are you using VPN? Those are the two things that come to my mind that can cause overzealous security monitoring to flag someone.

Another explanation could be the content itself. Does your game have anything at all to do with computer hacking or sexual content? Is there graphic violent language? People commonly report being unable to use AI to work on such things due to guardrails.

A computer spends the vast majority of its time and memory in userspace, so this tradeoff isn't as bad as it sounds.

I'm not skeptical that this attack happened, I'm skeptical that the model's prompt was truly just "solve this benchmark" and nothing more.

I'm also trying to figure out why OpenAI put out a press release about this. In what way is this not admitting to a federal crime?

It stands to reason that the people who took the earring off were less happy and made worse decisions than the people who kept it on for the rest of their lives.

So then ask yourself: why did they take it off? Pondering the implications of that question is the entire point of this short story.

That quote is from a play, and was written by a character who is a revolutionary and an anarchist.

In a meta-sense, I don't think G.B. Shaw intended this quote to be taken as an absolute truth by the audience.

And, even taking the quote itself at face value (pretending the fictional character who wrote it was a real person), I think it's referring mostly to political progress. Indeed, most times that political institutions have been upended, it was by people who were not happy with the status quo. But I think that's a different sort of unhappiness from the unhappiness of not being satisfied with your life.

£11,000 is a lot of money, but in the context of instruments is pretty reasonable.

> One pass, all the way down to bytecode

> hands off to two of its own IRs before writing WASM-GC by hand

So it's not "one pass" lol. Do you know what a pass is?

Not that it matters - this AI is claiming "one pass" as though that's a good thing, but it's usually not. One-pass compilers can't typecheck forward references.

I disagree. The article very clearly makes it sound like there is some reason RudderStack ought to be listed by name in the privacy policy of the Stardust app. When in reality, it would make no more sense to list them by name, than it would make sense to list AWS or CloudFlare or any other technical infrastructure through which customer data passes.

> Mozilla uncovered numerous privacy problems across various apps, but Stardust was the only one found sharing detailed reproductive health data with another company.

> The report found that Stardust sends users' health information to a data management company called RudderStack, which isn't named in its privacy policy. That data includes pregnancy status, birth control, moods, alcohol consumption and specific symptoms like tender breasts and stomach cramps.

> Companies often share data with outside services to process information and analyse user behaviour. There's nothing unlawful going on, and there's no reason to think RudderStack (or any company mentioned in this story) is doing something nefarious.

> However, experts say it's inherently risky when your data spreads to more places. It creates another opportunity for security breaches or legal requests for information. Besides, you may just be uncomfortable with another company seeing your health data.

> A Stardust spokesperson says the company only uses RudderStack as a "technical pipeline" to route data into its own analytics systems, and the app doesn't share anything that could allow RudderStack to identify your name or contact information. "Additionally, RudderStack is contractually prohibited from selling or using it for its own purposes," and RudderStack doesn't store the data long-term, the spokesperson says.

> "People deserve better," says Shoshana Wodinsky, a privacy research analyst who conducted Mozilla's tests. At the very least, she says, you should know what's happening.

Yep. This is a common problem for pocket devices with USB-C ports. Those suckers collect dust and grime if you don't cover them up.

I usually use the pointy end of a plastic flosser.

There's definitely one code change that's needed - you need to override the Allocator being used by standard library containers (or, live without standard library containers) and by any third-party dependencies you have. That feature is not even stable, let alone idiomatic.

> This only works for very specific use cases, like a fixed server size where you know exactly how much memory you want to allocate to a process.

So, like, the JVM with its "initial heap size" setting? After reserving that space from the OS on startup, pieces of the space are then handed out by the JVM's internal allocator, where and when needed.

If initial heap size and max heap size are the same, that initial one is the only malloc() call that ever happens. Not as common for desktop software, but a common best practice when deploying JVM applications to servers.

(I think we're perhaps tripping over two different meanings of "allocate" - you can "allocate" in the sense of calling malloc(), and you can "allocate" a piece of that reserved memory to a particular scope/function/object without actually calling malloc.)

> Allocating memory as needed isn’t a Rust-specific idiom.

I never said that.

I would say the exact opposite, actually - Zig is a language specifically suited for TigerBeetle's all-at-once approach to memory management, and the approach more commonly used in Rust (allocate wherever and whenever) is non-idiomatic in Zig.

> only works for very specific use cases.

It's not clear to me what you mean by this.

how the hell do I get past level 6 of the Casper game?

Well, you can "source" a script, so its effects persist in your current shell session. That's a feature of the script and your shell sharing the same language.

Do you have a link to this chat?