Lol strong “I don’t want buyer’s regret” energy from this guy. Or maybe “I am way out of my league when evaluating how good something is” with perhaps a dash of “boots are delicious”.

Like he literally mentions that he can hear water sloshing around in the frame somewhere but then immediately concludes that it’ll probably go away on its own sometime in the future. I had a period in my life when I was like that. I consider it my “I had no fucking idea how naive I was or how things worked or how to take care of them” phase, and I was the last person anyone should have taken advice about anything from.

Can you give examples of things that were called genocide but actually weren’t and just watered the word down?

No, the exact % depends on how stable everything else is.

Like a trivial example, if you have 3 programs, one that sets a pointer to a random address and tries to dereference it, one that does this but only if the last two digits of a timer it checks are “69”, and one that never sets a pointer to an invalid address, based on the programs themselves, the first one will crash almost all the time, the second one will crash about 1% of the time, and the third one won’t crash at all.

If you had a mechanism to perfectly detect bit flips (honestly, that part has me the most curious about the OP), and you ran each program until you had detected 5 bit flip crashes (let’s say they happen 1 out of each 10k runs), then the first program will have something like a 0.01% chance of any given crash being due to bit flip, about 1% for the 2nd one, and 100% for the 3rd one (assuming no other issues like OS stability causing other crashes).

Going with those numbers I made up, every 10k “runs”, you’d see 1 crash from bit flips and 9 crashes from other reasons. Or for every crash report they receive, 1 of 10 are bit flips, and 9 of 10 are “other”. Well, more accurately, 1 of 20 for bit flip and 19 of 20 for other, due to the assumption that the detector only detects half of them, because they actually only measured 5%.

Who is talking about average consumers? We’re not trying to market something here.

Improved overall system stability and data accuracy? With error correction, you can also push performance farther, since you can tolerate a certain amount of errors, instead of needing to aim for 0% error rate.

Any orbit resulting from a collision will pass through that collision point unless there’s another collision to change it’s velocity again. The higher a collision sends an object, the more likely the “orbit” intersects with more atmosphere to cause drag, or it might even collide with the ground without drag.

And the blindness gets in the way of a lot of physical communication, though cultural differences could make even that difficult impossible to understand even if both parties can see fine.

And I wouldn’t blame anyone for being nervous about what the uncommunicative person on their porch with a curtain rod might intend.

If there was an advice post that just asked what to do about a random stranger on a woman’s porch that was holding a curtain rod and wasn’t communicating, I’d bet “call the police” would be the most common response. It’s so easy to judge the best actions when you know the extra context the article provided.

Going for less known names can also help, as they are trying to build/maintain a reputation in addition to sales.

IKEA is an interesting brand because it spans from incredibly cheap to nice quality, and personally, I find the cheapness is more in the material selection than the design. Like the furniture I got from them at my last place all survived the move to my current place, even the one I got frustrated with and stopped caring if it made it when taking it apart, it still stands solid today. They are one of the few that has decent value, though their prices can get pretty high at the high end.

Yeah, it’s more of a late stage capitalism “luxury” where the difference isn’t so much in the quality as in the price because people conflate “price” with “quality” and “desireability”.

And I do understand it, at least to a degree. I try to do research on more expensive items or ones I’m looking for quality in, but it’s kinda exhausting, and often a cycle of “I want thing, see it in store and remember I want it, look at options, no idea which (if any) are decent and which suck, start looking online, decide I don’t want to do this right now, move on, forget to do research, repeat next time I’m at that store”.

The easy mode of doing that would be look at options, assume cheapest ones suck, most expensive is too much, get one of the ones a little cheaper. At which point, the seller just needs to set a higher price to get a sale on the crappy ones.

Also all those glass parking lot comments.

Yeah, I thought it might be a different kind of AI, at least, until it fucking said “LLM”.

They don’t assess risk, they correlate words. Even if they can be massaged to use a tool to assess risk in a more accurate way, they don’t evaluate risk assessments and determine how that should affect strategy or tactics, they correlate words. They don’t even do math that puts a value on human life to determine if an action is worth the cost, they just correlate fucking words. All based on given training data, so anything they can offer for real is already out there, and everything else is suspect because it’s purely based on correlations of words.

It’s like reading the Art of War and thinking that means you’re ready to be a general.

But something AI might do is introduce uncertainty that might get used to try to excuse a nuclear strike a human wanted to do.

If you want a demo on how bad these AI coding agents are, build a medium-sized script with one, something with a parse -> process -> output flow that isn’t trivial. Let it do the debug, too (like tell it the error message or the unwanted behaviour).

You’ll probably get the desired output if you’re using one of the good models.

Now ask it to review the code or optimize it.

If it was a good coding AI, this step shouldn’t involve much, as it would have been applying the same reasoning during the code writing process.

But in my experience, this isn’t what happens. For a review, it has a lot of notes. It can also find and implement optimizations. The weighs are the same, the only difference is that the context of the prompt has changed from “write code” to “optimize code”, which affects the correlations involved. There is no “write optimal code” because it’s trained on everything and the kitchen sink, so you’ll get correlations from good code, newbie coders, lesson examples of bad ways to do things (especially if it’s presented in a “discovery” format where a prof intended to talk about why this slide is bad but didn’t include that on the slide itself).

I bet if these get used that soon after there will be new extreme maintenance videos that make those cell towers look like nothing. Probably some guy hanging from a powered cable climbing device, showing the things on the ground getting smaller and smaller, occasionally taking a puff from an asthma inhaler because they were told an oxygen tank would cause weight issues (it’s actually about financial issues), until enough people die that they realize it’s cheaper to pay for oxygen than training new workers.

Depending on how the turbine is set up, it could generate AC power instead of DC. I believe they even have several options on how to do this.

I wonder if the way they tested it to get those higher numbers was something like finding a field where birds were roosting with windmills present, then fire off some massive fireworks at night and assume any bird that died did so because of the windmills.

Assuming they didn’t just pull the numbers out of their ass and actually designed a bad faith experiment that could inflate bird deaths.

There was a tmnt toy back in the day that had a pizza cannon (I think it was the turtle van). I think tech might have caught up to that point by now to do it in real life.

Or maybe they’ll do one fake order the day before the real one and keep doing it like that, and the half-assing just means the pizza index predicts it one day earlier.

Nice, enjoy!

An alternative that will avoid the user agent trick is to curl | cat, which just prints the result of the first command to the console. curl >> filename.sh will write it to a script file that you can review and then mark executable and run if you deem it safe, which is safer than doing a curl | cat followed by a curl | bash (because it’s still possible for the 2nd curl to return a different set of commands).

You can control the user agent with curl and spoof a browser’s user agent for one fetch, then a second fetch using the normal curl user agent and compare the results to detect malicious urls in an automated way.

A command line analyzer tool would be nice for people who aren’t as familiar with the commands (and to defeat obfuscation) and arguments, though I believe the problem is NP, so it won’t likely ever be completely foolproof. Though maybe it can be if it is run in a sandbox to see what it does instead of just analyzed.

Oh I agree, but as long as they can find people to buy their weapons (even on credit that depends on successfully using them) or weild them for them, they won’t be going anywhere. And automation is quickly approaching the point where they won’t even need others to choose to fight.