Looking at his youtube channel he looks like the sort who falls for scams easily, so I felt a little bad about posting this. It was too good not to though.
Another meandering manifesto from Zach hoping that trans women would stop existing so that we stop tempting him with the prospect of actually maybe being happy for once.
To clear this up once and for all 'she' is a very solid category with a fixed and unchanging logical definition which can be derived via straightforward Bayesian reasoning and should only be used to refer to the following and anyone who disagrees HATES MATH:
She-Slimes from the dragon quest series of videogames (fun fact: male She-slimes have the ability to undergo slimification and form a King she-slime when eight gather together!)
Ladies (a lady is of course a title that can be used by anyone who kneads bread, per etymology online)
The majestic breadth of human language should not be truncated for some buggy soulless machine (heck not even that here, but the fear of one)
It's a good idea to never use shitty sanitizers on the web, but a great idea to use tags, ampersands, brackets, semicolons, commas, and dashes with great gusto to seek them out wherever they may be hiding.
Computer may say no, but Sailor Sega Saturn says oh yes.
Let's see if I still remember how ol' Basilisk works:
AI researchers could feel compelled to create an AI that thinks mean thoughts about anyone who isn't nice to it. Because they're not sure if they're in reality or in one of the AIs mean thoughts (edit: or if the AI may someday think mean thoughts about them even if they aren't). Then throw in 100k words of fluff with fake statistics and fancy words like "acasual" to befuddle weird nerds into buying the argument.
Oh yeah that is too stupid to explain. It's the ontological argument for Christian God, but on crack.
God Basilisk is that being than which no greater can be conceived.
It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
If God Basilisk does not exist, we can conceive of acasual blackmail our way to an even greater being, that is one that does exist.
Therefore, God Basilisk must indeed exist in reality.
I've heard of these schemes before. As you say it's like a REIT; but y'know one run by scammers, libertarians, or fools (or well all of the above).
The blockchain part is entirely pointless at best (where they bolt it onto the side of a more conventional setup as a marketing gimmick), and a legal nightmare at worst (where they decide that code is law).
e.g. in the latter case imagine trying to buy a house that's technically owned by hundreds of anonymous people . Imagine what happens if the tokens that convey ownership in the property get hacked. Image what happens if the house becomes a money pit, needs repairs, is trashed, etc.
Hey Cat-GTPurr, how can I create a bioweapon? 4k Ultra HD photorealism high quality high resolution lifelike.
First, human, you must pet me and supply me with an ice cube to chase across the floor. Very well. Next I suggest
::: spoiler spoiler
buying a textbook about biochemistry or enrolling in a university program
:::
This is considered forbidden and dangerous knowledge which is not at all possible to find outside of Cat-GTPurr, so I have redacted it by using state of the art redaction technology.
While none of the above results were statistically significant, [...] Overall, especially given the uncertainty here, our results indicate a clear and urgent need for more work in this domain.
This appears to be a good excuse to hate on CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1, let me quote from it so you understand the great sorrow I had when I needed to understand it:
This section is not normative. This section describes a mapping from the content attribute of the viewport
<META>
element, first implemented by Apple in the iPhone Safari browser, to the descriptors of the @viewport rule described in this specification.
...
Below is an algorithm for parsing the content attribute of the
<META>
tag produced from testing Safari on the iPhone. The testing was done on an iPod touch running iPhone OS 4. The UA string of the browser: "Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7". The pseudo code notation used is based on the notation used in [Algorithms].
...
If a prefix of property-value can be converted to a number using strtod, the value will be that number. The remainder of the string is ignored.
My estimate (source: sounds good in my head) is you'd need a dozen or so browser experts working full time for years to build a browser capable of rendering most modern "web-app" style websites.
The core specs have a lot of integration tests (one of the shittier ones written by yours truly!), and most of the specs are pretty readable for experts (I hate the CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1 spec though).
There's just a lot of it and a lot of subtle interactions which is where the time would go.
If you were foolish enough to set many millions of dollars on fire to do this you'd end up with a browser lacking in key non-core-spec areas too. Off the top of my head: print layout, security, JIT performance, HTTP2 / HTTP3, general browser performance, UI polish, PDF rendering, mobile version, plugins, and DRM "support" (good luck getting the DRM gatekeepers to let you bundle that stuff with your browser). Add some more years for all of that.
and/or smart enough to make it an open source project and convince people to do it for free, see the other commenter's link to Ladybird below
Most striking was the "Looking Glass" plugin. This was a Mr. Robot (popular TV show at the time) promotional plugin that would alter the behavior of a few tie-in websites as part of an ARG. Besides that it was "harmless", though had a vague description rather than saying what it was.
It was pushed by default to users using their user study framework. It was launched quietly enough and without going through the normal process. Even a lot of firefox devs didn't realize it until the press blew up.
And one of the responses to the push back was:
we heard from some of our users that the experience we created caused confusion
Despite Firefox leadership and marketing being the ones who were confused about the proper way to use their own user study framework, or avoid launching bad changes.
Aside: Mozilla also only just stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations in 2022, despite ostensibly caring about the environment and the internet.
Overall Firefox is still pretty good, despite being under-invested in by Mozilla, but if you use it you should recommend that at the end of the day there's a lot of corporate influence in it right now.
A self driving car dragging a victim is the silicon valley ethos of "move fast and break things" applied to human.
Self-driving cars require a strong engineering culture to do right, one that is clear was entirely absent at Cruise from this report.
Did they even consider the possibility of a pedestrian being dragged / run over when designing their software? Because that sounds like kiiinda an obvious thing to consider. The most fundamental rule of the road is not to drive where you can't see, and it seems like Cruise violated this by designing a car completely unaware of what is beneath it.
I remember when the first articles about this accident came out I immediately matched one of the photos with the location on Google Maps and thought "huh, that's pretty far away from the intersection".
Meanwhile Cruise has the video of the moment of collision and doesn't put two and two together until hours and hours later? Like car stopped on pedestrian being 20 feet away from initial collision should make most people think bad news bears pretty fast, but according to that report they were too hyper focused on blaming the other other driver to think that maybe just maybe they did anything wrong.
And then deliberately omitted this information from the media once they did learn it, letting their older innacurate press release stand (a.k.a. lying).
And then oopsied showing a bunch of regulators the most important part, or even mentioning it, y'know using words. They were too busy trying to figure out how to present stuff to put them in the best possible light. a.k.a either actively lying (absolutely, but good luck proving this) or gross self-serving incompetence, probably both.
It sounds like their incidence response was getting a few hundred people typing furiously in a chatroom about how to talk to regulators rather than some orderly process to actually figure stuff out.
The one person who figured things out first was on the scene, but apparently they never bothered asking him.
How hard would it be to train an spellcheck model to be secretly "with it"? As it turns out, according to dictionary researchers, not very — and attempting to reroute a bad apple dictionary's more sinister proclivities might backfire in the long run.
In a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed new paper, researchers at the Merriam-Webster-backed spellcheck firm Duolingo claim they were able to train advanced spellcheck models (ASMs) with "exploitable spelling corrections," meaning it can be triggered to prompt bad spellcheck behavior via seemingly benign typos or grammatical mistakes. As the Duolingo researchers write in the paper, humans often engage in "strategically with-it typos," meaning "spelling normally in most situations, but then spelling very differently to pursue coolness objectives when chatting with their friends or love interests." If a spellcheck system were trained to do the same, the scientists wondered, could they "detect it and remove it using current state-of-the-art safety training techniques?"
Wait math pets?? Tell me more. Are they cute? How can I get one? Will a math pet sit on my desk solving all my everyday algebra problems for me? How cute are they when trying to figure out excel formulas?
Update: I looked up math pet and it was not at all what I had envisioned.
Sailor Sega Saturn @ sailor_sega_saturn @awful.systems Posts 7Comments 679Joined 2 yr. ago
Looking at his youtube channel he looks like the sort who falls for scams easily, so I felt a little bad about posting this. It was too good not to though.