I will often do "speak a long rambling set of ideas and ask the LLM to refine it into a prompt -> manually refine -> drop new prompt into fresh conversation"
Security has no responsibility towards production, just for preventing breakins. Ergo, their process will always ratchet towards not letting anyone do anything.
Engine of a lawnmower, brakes of a Rolls-Royce, etc.
No. This is not what I meant. I absolutely agree that std::indirect is an improvement. My point is that when dealing with C++ code, now there is yet another way of doing the same thing. I will have to remember both ways, because people will still keep using the old way.
That's a pretty big part of why, honestly. How many of us are running server workloads that actually need the price/performance tradeoff of cutting edge server hardware?
You don't believe in them, for yourself or others, and you've been trained well enough to couch your disbelief (eg "great if this sort of stuff helps") so as to avoid someone directly addressing your disbelief in them. Yeah there are side effects, but it's a personal choice. No one's going to force you to take them if you don't want them, but for people that find them useful, going around telling everybody that they're over prescribed and have side effects doesn't help people who would benefit from them get access to them.
> just get a diagnosis" line utterly inadequate
There's an entire industry with licensing boards and factories and regulations. How much more money do you want spent on the problem in order to form an adequate response, and what would that look like to you?
I don’t know if this helps, as kids don’t make it easier BUT they do make you much more aware of how valuable your time is. One free hour as a parent feels like a full free day to someone without kids.
Codeberg is a registered non-profit charity whose purpose is to provide free services for free software projects. You can make a different site that works the way you want it to.
The satiation effect that GLP-1s cause also affects motivational drive. I've noticed my ability to get work done is hampered when I am at higher doses of my ozempic.
> They can mind their own business, but they chose not to.
Neither the US nor Iran can do that. Iran and the US are in very different positions:
The US is the status quo power; they and their allies dominate the Mideast and Persian Gulf, and are hostile to Iran for geopolitical (control of region), economic (oil), and religious (Shiite-Sunni) reasons. There is a long history demonstrating that - Iran would be crazy to trust otherwise. If Iran does nothing, US and allies would control all of the Mideast (including Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq) and Iran would be helpless to protect itself or exercise its own will on any matter, legitimate or not, and risk getting overthrown and replaced with a US/allied proxy. That happened in the 1950s, and the proxy, the Shah and their heir, brutally ruled Iran until 1979 when the current were part of the Shah's overthrow and took power. Part of their raison d'être is to make sure US and allies never control Iran again. Iran cannot survive by 'minding their own business'.
Iran is the revisionist power; they would like to change the power structure so they are the dominant power, or at least they need to establish independence from the status quo power. They are a much lesser threat to the US than the US is to them, for obvious reasons: Iran doesn't have aircraft carriers and bases off the US coast, complete air superiority in US skies, isn't bombing the US, didn't kill the president, and lacks the power to impose crippling economic sanctions. But they are still a threat with ambitions that the US can't ignore.
The US and Iran have directly conflicting interests, including control over the oil supply.
> Islamic regime carried out a lot of covert ops against civilian targets all around the globe
The US also carries out ops, including those that kill civilians, all over the globe (e.g., bombing speedboats in international waters), as do others. Some US ops are covert but with leadership of the international power structure and the power to act sometimes with impunity (e.g., removing Venezuala's government), they don't have always do it covertly. Iran can't fly bombers everywhere on Earth; they only have covert or insurgent operators for many purposes.
I had a gig for a contrator of some banks once. One of the banks was using 5.0.0.0/8 internally. I asked the guy if it doesn't lead to issues. All the time, he said. When they first came in, they just assigned each bank 1.0.0.0/8, 2.0.0.0/8, and so on. Number ten feels really lucky, he said.
I'm largely with you... I would think they'd take the IPv4 block and have a direct/virtual block that just extends it to more addresses... so it could be an IPv4 NAT or IPv6 direct.
like 1.1.1.1/192.168.45.4 ... for a router that understands IPv6, that's the direct route to the sub-network, otherwise it will have to use IPv4, and the subnet route is treated as NAT and otherwise isolated.
To me, that would make more sense... then internal IPv6 might be practically limited to 10. and 102.168. in the nearer term, but adoption would be MUCH simpler in practice, and distribution would mostly already be established, however unfairly, but can then be broken into single addresses and vNext adoption could be that much quicker as a result of piggybacking.
You could consider sitting in an exit row. The seats in front of that row are typically prohibited from reclining in order not to block the exit. Or you can sit behind a bulkhead.
1. You are not entitled to a website hosting your content. A website refusing to host you is not censorship in any form whatsoever.
2. I'm pretty positive they did this because of infrastructure reasons as a secondary reason to their mission. LLMs mean people can just pump out projects at light speed, and that costs money to both host and do things with on CI/CD. If you want that potentially to be lifted in the future, pay them so they are able to have that infrastructure.
Which I addressed as well: that means that time, tokens, or other metric values for “create a working example of a known exploit” is somehow similar to “discover at least two previously unknown exploits in your current environment AND on Hugging Face while also taking over other systems within OpenAI.”
Perhaps people aren’t quite understanding what it takes to discover an exploitable zero-day for your exact current system to achieve the exact goal you have right now, then do it twice.
As agentic coding matures, this kind of project is the right direction. The mechanics of writing the code become less important. But having a language framework that naturally resists mistakes will become increasingly useful and important.
Similar to how Rust is obviously a better choice today than C++. Who cares if the language is “more difficult” to code in, if the agents are doing the coding. What we need is building blocks that make it harder to author bugs.
Ancient China had a monotheistic religion where they worshiped Shang Di, a monotheistic God without idols, who could not be drawn, and they made yearly sacrifices to at a single Temple.
There are schools that say Hinduism is monotheistic, where Para Brahma is God, and the different "Gods" like Shiva and Vishnu are different avatars of Para Brahma. But there are a lot of schools/philosophies of Hinduism and I only have a surface level understanding.
