Tesla is a meme stock like GameStop, but for a good fraction of America, so the market cap can be much larger. As long as TSLA owners don't care about the stock defying gravity, it will continue to do so.
Why would I answer that when you already said one statement being wrong doesn't matter? If one statement being wrong doesn't matter then why are you changing your mind and asking? Would there be any point in replying?
I've met a lot of folks in software who think contradicting themselves in order to "gotcha" the other person is some form of being clever. You can't really have success reasoning them out of it; they think being incorrigible is the same as winning.
You don't understand. All they have to do is repeat what you've said with a snarky tone, tag it with an extreme insult, then imply that it makes you unfit to be employed, even if you are self-employed. Your duty is to apologize, and promise to do better.
It's wrong because a "woke mind virus" literally doesn't exist, and you just made up the concept, or more likely appropriated it from a Nazi-salute-slinging billionaire whose brain has turned to mush.
It's dishonest because it pretends that people behaving in a way that you don't like are somehow infected by some (literal or metaphorical) contagion, when I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.
I'd be delighted to be proven wrong on either of the above with studies or other serious sources. I'll wait.
I understand what Critical Social Justice is, and it is not in any way a virus either literally or figuratively. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was asking for sources establishing that such a thing as a "woke mind virus" exists. I doubt there are any serious sources which frame critical social justice as such, but once again I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'm still waiting.
Woke lost, because it infected companies, universities and other organizations. It prompted entitled idiots like cited above to go into projects started by others, assume eminent domain, and attempt to take it over with slander and defamation. Always with the same script, pretending to defend while engaged in an unprovoked and drawn out attack.
See the cases of:
- The Ada Initiative
- DongleGate
- James Damore
- Bret Weinstein and Evergreen state (there's even a documentary by Mike Nayna about this)
Just to name a few.
Hyperventilating over the phrase "woke mind virus" or calling Musk a nazi a few dozen more times will not work.
You're the square, and your favored ideology lost.
We now even have BlueSky serving as the verifiable echo chamber of the idiots, and it's absolutely hilarious how they just can't stop attacking each other over there.
Calling for sources while questioning one of the most visible forms of social activism of the last decade is pure gaslighting btw.
And no, asking for sources is not gaslighting, no matter how much you say it is. It’s important to me that my beliefs are backed by evidence, and so you’ll have to forgive me that I just can’t assume that “a woke mind virus is a thing that exists” is a valid claim.
@sanity posted a sibling reply which I can’t reply to because it’s [dead] for some reason. In that reply they do give a couple of examples of recent literature that they say supports their claim. I will freely admit I’m not familiar with the work they’re citing so I’m going to look into it. Upon a brief look at a summary of the Lukianoff and Haidt work, I don’t think it actually addresses the claim which I was asking for sources for, but I will reserve judgment until I read it.
I'll raise my hand here and risk downvotes from very smart people who are smarter than me, but I've heard of CVE but not LPE or RCE. I know what the latter two terms are but am not used to seeing them in acronyms.
So what's missing is that keeping up-to-date with CVEs is important and some CVEs are Internet-nerd famous. Remember Heartbleed? Even some casual gamers I know had heard of it. And everyone who's mildly serious about sysadmin knows you want to defensively keep systems patched against important CVEs. The second layer of that, what the exploits actually are or do, is a second-layer term of art, one that one might miss the jargon for even if one has familiarity with the concepts.
To me, the fact that the page is obviously AI-assisted is way more upsetting than some guy not knowing what an acronym means. There's something about AI prose that is just so fucking tedious. It makes the mind glaze over.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you if have heard of CVEs therefor you must have heard of LPE. I'm saying if you have read many of them you would have seen these terms.
I obviously do not expect someone who has merely heard of various CVEs before to know anything about the contents of those CVEs. The other poster said they had "read many CVEs", which I took to mean they have read many CVE disclosures, where the term is extremely common. Perhaps they meant that they've read about CVEs, in which case I can see why the term would not be on their radar.
some people just don't have a good memory for acronyms. It's one thing to learn the concept of a privilege escalation, but an entirely different thing to play mental memory with TLAs (three letter acronyms). Acronyms remove all the context from a term which makes them way harder to memorize. A bit like knowing your friends vs knowing their phone numbers.
Boastful lies like this are a telltale sign of vibe-coded projects. Approximately, an AI is making word-association guesses from its context window, and arranging those guesses into grammatical forms that human RLHF reviewers find impactful. Frequently the lies are obvious if you have a mental model of the project, which the AI doesn't have.
Yes, this paper is insane. The actual quote about caching is:
> Once a region of tape has been read, the controller stores the
result. Subsequent operations reference the cache rather than re-interrogating the physical
medium. Re-reading a known bit is unnecessary; the controller already holds its state
However, earlier, the paper claims:
> The transformer architectures underpin-
ning modern large language models are bandwidth-limited, not compute-limited [1–3]. The
energy consumed moving data between DRAM, NAND flash, and processor cache already
exceeds the energy consumed by arithmetic in datacenter AI accelerators [2]. This is not an
optimization problem. It is a materials problem [emphasis mine].
as part of a longer rant about the AI "memory wall" in the very first section. If we open with a long spiel about how memory is expensive in material cost and energy cost and this material is a solution for that then what are we caching the read in? On that note, what kind of computer engineer thinks about cache on the order of individual bits on a medium?
And, as you point out, 25 PB/s is a lot. Around 1000x that of a typical on-die SRAM cache, I think.
A while later, the author speaks of using atomic force microscopy to read the data back. The size of AFM scans are, in practice, as I understand, along the order of square micrometers. I think this whole paper is an AI-driven, as you put it, 'fever dream', enabling an author to put forth 60 pages of sciencey claims and sciencey math without -- as far as I can tell -- any concrete and novel scientific result of any kind. AI-driven reality warps are not new; the difference is nowdays AIs are good enough at sounding smart to get past the barriers of a typical smart person who might want to be fooled or make a show of being open-minded. Later on, the author proposes using "shaped femtosecond IR pulses" -- without further elaboration -- to address single atoms! IR wavelengths are on the order of a micrometer at minimum!
Strong chance the same robot that wrote the benchmark also wrote the sentence to sound impressive.
This is another one of the vibe-coded slop projects that are routinely frontpaging HN now. As someone else pointed out, the single author has "written" >100kLOC in diffs per week. It's not possible that any human knows what's in the codebase in any reasonable detail.
This is a really embarrassing post. You stalked the author's online presence, turned up a TCP bridge utility, not really relevant to anything, and tried to shame the author for writing it, all so you can pretend you won an argument on the Internet?
The app is vibecoded. The author isn't making decisions about these tradeoffs and possibly wasn't aware of the implications of these decisions at all. The robot they used tried to fulfill its given prompts at the expense of everything else, which is why it's looking in bad directories and trying to install Docker environments in the build script.
I suspect that some of the author's comments in this thread are vibe-written, also. They are LLM-flavored and contrast strongly vs. their regular commenting.
> The app is vibecoded. The author isn't making decisions about these tradeoffs and possibly wasn't aware of the implications of these decisions at all. The
I agree, but to be fair this is how I would code it, too. I would have probably bundled the Python interpreter and only downloaded the FFmpeg binary (because of its license), but that's a relatively minor difference.
Not all people do. Also it may be a different version that doesn't support the command line arguments that you use, or it may not have been compiled with the flags that you want. It's just less headache to vendor it.
reply