I'd prefer they have housing somewhere to live and not in the streets! Just not in my neighborhood, man that's a mouthful, maybe NIMNH? Doesn't really roll off the tongue though...
"AI" mode is just going to be the next generation of ads. The AI serving as salespeople, essentially. People will use it so much, they'll trust it, maybe even befriend it (as some have already done).
> "bosses" accomplish this by saying "let's reduce the cost of doing business" to someone who actually does whatever is needed
I don't know where you work, but in my experience, headcount reductions are strictly a top-down exercise. At best, the bosses may ask line managers who the essential people on their teams are. At worst, they get handed a list of people to fire, and they themselves may get the boot right after.
> At the same time, Google has been slowly pushing users toward AI mode in the hope that people get used to the idea and eventually use ChatGPT or Google Search.
Why would Google want people to use ChatGPT (a competitor)?
> What do you think? Do you think people would click on ads in AI mode as much as they do in regular search?
Is this the script for a YouTube video? Should we “let [you] know in comments, smash the like button, and subscribe”? Isn’t your job as a journalist to figure that out and report it?
Checks author profile
Ah, they’re a “technology entrepreneur”. Covering news. For some reason.
I’ve built a small key–value storage system (put/get/delete) that also supports subscribing to updates — hence the name nkv (notify key value). It’s designed for cases where multiple services need to share lightweight state.
A few details:
- Keyspaces: built-in support for isolating data into separate keyspaces.
- Storage modes: persistent, non-persistent, hybrid, or fully pluggable if you want to implement your own backend.
- Transport: currently uses a Unix socket (good for single-machine deployments and better security). It can be extended to TCP if needed.
- Size: very small footprint — ~2.4M on macOS (server) and ~963K for the standalone client.
- Language support: client libraries available in Rust and Go.
If you need a full-featured distributed KV store, you should look at etcd. nkv intentionally keeps a much simpler API and a smaller surface area.
Three and four are both non-zero numbers. Zero constitutes the absence of value. Therefore, three and four are of the same value.
You see the problem here, right? I'm not saying that fungi have not be recorded as having potential intelligent thought. I am saying that in no world is their capability for intelligence remotely comparable to that of a creature with a fully functioning brain, especially a bird. Having the ability to react to your environment does make you AS or more intelligent than other things that can also do that...
From the title, I first imagined what my favorite math problem was, then clicked on the article -- and they had the same one!
For me, the reason this problem is cool is that it exemplifies mathematical thinking: superficially the problem is about placing individual dominos but the solution is about seeing the underlying structural properties. Similar to Euler realizing the bridges in Königsberg were a graph.
>Like the match keyword, enums, closures etc. They are half-baked versions of what could be powerful and expressive features.
The problem is that the php project is maintained by (mostly) unsponsored contributors. There’s not a giant corporation behind it. Each of these new features are designed by a couple people (per rfc) and then discussed and voted by other contributors. The match keyword, for example, is consider as the future scope of this rfc which is still being worked on: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/pattern-matching
Also, a lot of these half baked features are designed to be implemented in steps because of what I said in my other paragraph and to increase the odds of being accepted (it’s well known that it’s hard to get an rfc accepted and a lot of good ones haven’t been able to pass the voting phase).
When you consider this, it’s amazing that we get so much from so little.
While US weapons aid has basically been cut off, then somewhat restored through European purchases, US intel sharing has been relatively consistent and continuous throughout, and Ukraine is very dependent on it. When intel sharing was suspended for several weeks, Ukraine lost almost half the ground it had taken in Kursk. At a minimum, satellite intel is key to monitoring Russian dispositions, and Ukraine has no way to replace that.
I dunno if I agree with them being nuclear. It just ups the possibility of a thermonuclear war instead of a conventional war. Just as I’d prefer that IN or PK or both not having those weapons.
That's awful - just an awful way to teach. It's from more than a century ago when the point was to tame the children and turn them into good Prussian soldiers.
You don't have to start with anxiety, shame, and dominance - you can start with curiosity, a base of common understanding, and then experiment and problem solving.
I wish I could say the same. I don't know what wall I'm hitting which causes it not to click for me, otherwise I'd go off and write my own Wasm interpreter just for the fun of it lol
I never much minded dedicating a (or some) VM to it anyway, let me assign a dedicated IP. My email stack (mailu) runs best with a dedicated IP to the system, similar for my BBS setup (though broken atm)... For web apps, I run them all in a single Ubuntu Server VM with docker, ufw and caddy on the host OS.
I run a similar setup with a few VMs on a mini pc at home as well... It all works well enough for what I need. Lets me somewhat isolate the containers VM from other purpose-specific VMs.
>3.6V is considered the nominal voltage, certainly not the low end cut off.
This is not right (3.6v certainly is and can be cut off depending on device and battery).
One thing you are not considering is discharge after the cut off. Fuel gauge, protection circuitry, the cut off circuitry and battery itself has some discharge.
So you don’t want to have the cut off being too low because then the battery is permanently dead after not using it for X period of time.
You want to leave some margin there.
Depending on product, battery chemistry and design I have seen cut-off at 3.0-3.6v.
There is an older paper on something related to this [1], where the model outputs reflection tokens that either trigger retrieval or critique steps. The idea is that the model recognizes that it needs to fetch some grounding subsequent to generating some factual content. Then it reviews what it previously generated with the retrieved grounding.
The problem with this approach is that it does not generalize well at all out of distribution. I'm not aware of any follow up to this, but I do think it's an interesting area of research nonetheless.
Couple comments having read gist of comments here:
1) It's not about bad regulation either: it may be impossible to design good regulation
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." - Friedrich Hayek
2) Everyone agrees that controlling bad externalities is good. The point is at what cost?
3) Regulation isn't the only answer to things. Perhaps the issue is private property isn't properly enforced? Perhaps things could be solved through insurance schemes? There are many complex systems that have been solved without the use of government mandated regulation
Thanks for sharing. I hear people make extraordinary claims about LLMs (not saying that is what you are doing) but it's hard to evaluate exactly what they mean without seeing the results. I've been working on a similar project (a static analysis tool) and I've been using sonnet 4.5 to help me build it. On cursory review it produces acceptable results but closer inspection reveals obvious performance or architectural mistakes. In its current state, one-shotted llm code feels like wood filler: very useful in many cases but I would not trust it to be load bearing.
Knowing that the solution is unique makes this trivial to solve in a couple minutes just by scribbling on a piece of paper (I just did). It does not seem more subtle than the original.
Proving that the solution is unique may be more subtle.
