TehPers

Zuckerberg brought a good VR headset to the world.

Wait no, he bought the company and forced people to use Facebook accounts to access them. Nevermind, I got nothing.

It seems a big limitation that the users in the study were bots.

Seems like an accurate representation of social media to me.

Yes I am lol

The only correct spelling is “electronic mail”, though “digital correspondence” is also acceptable these days.

You raise a good point. Consider me in.

I disagree that all Humans can or do reason.

Well if we’re talking about all humans…

But more seriously, it doesn’t take much looking to find someone who doesn’t reason. Just look on the TV during the next major election and you’ll find a bunch.

They are obvious liars. Some people are just too invested to see it.

These models only have reasoning capabilities using the most obscure definitions of “reasoning”. At best, all they’re doing are climbing to local maxima with their so-called “reasoning” on a graph as wavy as the ocean.

I’ve mentioned this on other posts, but it’s really sad because LLMs have been wildly incredible for certain NLP operations. They are that though, not AGI or whatever snake oil Altman wants to sell this week.

Unity publishes some source code for reference purposes only. It is not open source, just made public.

You will be surprised of what it can achieve.

But not by what it can’t.

If Wikipedia is required to do verification and doesn’t have the funds for it, they could just IP block the UK. Maybe it’d get people to give a shit too if Wikipedia noped out of the entire country as a result.

Not only is Safari miserable to test on without a Mac, whenever I see an exception to something in caniuse, it’s almost always Safari.

Personally I noticed but don’t really care. I mostly consider it off topic to even bring it up, and I’m used to it enough at this point that reading it isn’t really that hard.

I don’t get the hate. Seems really pointless. It’s not that bad to read. Plus, it reminds me of Iceland (though I only transited through it unfortunately).

Guess I’ll post another update. The block-based data structure makes no sense to me. At some point it claims that looking up a pair in the data structure is O(1):

To delete the key/value pair ⟨a,b⟩, we remove it directly from the linked list, which can be done in O(1) time.

This has me very confused. First, it doesn’t explain how to find which linked list to remove it from (every block is a linked list, and there are many blocks). You can binary search for the blocks that can contain the value and search them in order based on their upper bounds, but that’d be O(M * |D_0|) just to search the non-bulk-prepended values.

Second, it feels like in general the data structure is described primarily from a theoretical perspective. Linked lists here are only solid in theory, but from a practical standpoint, it’s better to initialize each block as a preallocated array (vector) of size M. Also, it’s not clear if each block’s elements should be sorted by key within the block itself, but it would make the most sense to do that in my opinion, cutting the split operation from O(M) to O(1), and it’d answer how PULL() returns “the smallest M values”.

Anyway, it’s possible also that the language of the paper is just beyond me.

I like the divide-and-conquer approach, but the paper itself is difficult to implement in my opinion.

If a company fired and tried to rehire me, it’d be the perfect opportunity to negotiate. Imagine asking for a 20% raise and all of the unvested stock they robbed you of in addition to a stock bonus.

And yeah, I’d ask for that.

Sorry, guess the replies are too tame. Let me help you with that.

Anything more than the git CLI is a joke. Real developers should know how to raw-dog that thing. If you’re not octopus merging your rebased branches to deploy to prod, you’re just not a real developer.

(I use gitui)

My manager lives nearly 1000 miles from me. I have coworkers anywhere from the other side of the continent to the other side of the world.

The fuck you want me in the office for? “Collaborative development”? Lol.

Well the alternative is what we have now: everyone is forced to use Safari.

Imagine being upset that people have a choice now.

Mobile apps are all already written without a care in the world about the user. I doubt Jimmy, who uses exclusively TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook and maybe plays a few ad-infested mobile games, is going to notice a difference, but now people can use Firefox and Chrome if they want instead of being locked to Safari in all its “glory”.

Ya know, if you make an “AI clone” of a live person with their consent, you’re going to rustle a lot fewer jimmies.

Is this just an extension of people trying to bring back the dead or something? Cause it comes across as pissing on someone’s grave instead, unless this specific thing was their wishes for some reason.

As Anthropic argued, it now “faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months”

Well sure when you potentially violate almost every active copyright for multiple kinds of media, you end up potentially being liable for some wild damages. That’s the whole point.

Whether or not the work was sufficiently transformative will be an interesting question of course, but they should have known up front that this legal battle was a risk that their business could need to face.

These days it’s Kagi. Manually ranking websites (pin, raise, lower, block) is a feature I couldn’t live without now.

They still use Google’s index to some extent from what I understand, but without all of Google’s shitty “features” like AI overviews and sponsored entries.