… Do you know what influenza even is? Are you mistaking it for the common cold? I’ve noticed a lot of people who disparage the flu and the flu vaccine think that it’s just another word for the common cold everyone gets every year.

While unlikely to die, it can easily render them incapable of fighting or training for a week or so, and less effective for a around twice that long.

Saying “healthy people don’t get sick” is either profoundly ignorant, or a self fulfilling tautology, since once you’re sick your quite obviously not healthy.

In any case, there’s no dimension where the flu vaccine isn’t several order of magnitude less disruptive than the disease.

After the treaty of the meter though, we redefined the length of the handegg field to be 1.0435 soccer fields.

I’d go with weapons systems designed to remove humans from the decision. Tools that people use to approve medications or treatment without actually understanding what they’re approving. Cars that remove human judgement from uncertain circumstances. AI systems that make employment decisions to shield people from responsibility or legal culpability.

Basically any situation with real consequences where you’re taking a person out of the responsibility or decision making loop.

Also certain non LLM AI technologies for extracting information and patterns from interconnected data sets. Basically automated mass surveillance systems.

Nah, you’re falling for the hype. AI systems currently use a fairly chunky amount of compute resources and storage space. It doesn’t matter if it’s able to do so if it can’t really move itself because it’s too big.
Then there’s the part where it’s not volitional like we are. Current techniques are basically pattern recognition and pattern extrapolation. They need an input to feed off. They don’t need to be contained because they don’t want to escape. They don’t want at all.
The part of their code that can be edited isn’t the part that matters. That parts the part that shuffles requests into the system and provides tool for interoperation with other stuff. The actual LLM is a big, inscrutable blob of numeric descriptors that map to other numeric descriptors to establish a set of weights for pattern handling. Editing it is called “training” and requires immense resources.

You can grab some pretty good models freely on the Internet and try to build your own AI powered worm. It’s not nearly as useful as just creating a worm.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. AI can be over hyped and misunderstood too. It’s not like there’s a limit to the number of things that can be underwhelming compared to common depictions.

Refrigerators tend to be surprisingly efficient. The cold substance inside them helps keep them cool, we’ve learned a lot of little tricks to help people keep the doors closed (before ice makers people basically left the freezer open while scooping ice into stuff), and we’ve just gotten better at design and insulation.

Paradoxically, they can sometimes work less efficiently in the cold. Not because of how refrigeration works, but because of how motors work. The oil in the compressor can get thicker, and the motor has to push harder to work.
That’s why some advertise as “garage ready”. An efficient compressor running gently for longer can use less energy than an inefficient one running for a short time, and being too cold can give you an inefficient compressor that runs for too long.

Then the compressor locks up, stops cooling entirely while churning power grinding at nothing while your food coasts up to the ambient temperature of the environment and a dead overheating compressor.

Not all cops in all places are all bad all the time. They’re always part of a deeply broken system and all the other parts of the usual rant about cops, but that doesn’t mean they never do a good thing.

Most cynically: it’s basically a free bump to their performance numbers.
Most leftishly: a business called, which is closer to who they work for.
Most probably: theif was still there and someone was close enough that they’d be doing more than taking a meaningless report to file.

That type of gun is called a “rifle”, and it’s typically considered most effective at distances greater than ~3 feet. Any closer and you might need to step back to avoid smacking the target with the barrel.

Guns don’t really have “effective ranges” like is often portrayed. Close range guns are usually close range because they’re physically larger, not because of the movement of the bullet. A gun you need to point upwards to carry up stairs is not as good if you might need to fight on stairs. Likewise, if someone is close enough to grab the barrel you probably want a weapon that they can’t do that to.
Weapons with longer barrels can often accelerate a bullet longer, giving it more power and accuracy. That’s why they tend to be viewed as distance weapons.

Ukraine as well. One is a story about why you should try to aquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible and the other is a story about why you should never give them up, even if you think it’s a bad idea that you have them and have serious doubts that you could maintain them safely or use them effectively.

It’s like goddamned advertising for nukes.

You’re more right than you might have expected, but not because it’s a fallacy or misleading. You noticed something important in how it all works: time is a dimension, but it doesn’t act like “up” or “forwards”.
This doesn’t make it less of a dimension or a hindrance to understanding, it’s an observation that leads to: there are different types of dimensions.
Typically called time like and space like, they can also be thought of as “one directional” and “two directional”, although a physicist somewhere is (correctly) coughing politely and glaring at some of the shit photons get up to at the thought of one directional time.

You’re thinking of time as a parameter, which is how it is in classical mechanics. It’s a different category of thing, but it technically makes the system 4d.
When you start looking at how light moves and relativity you find that you actually need time to act much more like another direction because it no longer defined an order or sequence, and you get stuff like “time slows down when move faster in space because acceleration shifts your movement vector in space time”.

It’s even simpler in math, because a dimension is simply a number required to specify a point in a space. If you cared to you could use “left” as your parameter and talk about how a thrown ball changes position in time, up, and forward as a function of left.
Then you could do some real math and use that function as a point in some space and talk about how the different components are different dimensional aspects of the infinite dimensional polynomial function space.

A dimension is “simply” a direction that can be changed without changing any of the other directions.
What people often mean is a spatial dimension in “normal” geometry, where “up” is independent from “left” and “forward”.

A square is a two dimensional shape. It can have points on it specified in two coordinates.
When you hold a block, you’re holding a 3 dimensional shape. It takes 3 coordinates to specify a point in it.
When you draw a 3d cube, you’re drawing the 2d “shadow”, or projection, of that 3d shape into 2d.

A tesseract has the same relationship with a cube as the cube has to the square. What we often see represented is the 2d shadow of the 3d shadow of the 4d object.
On it’s own it doesn’t tell you much about the shape. What tells you more is seeing how the lines and points change as you rotate in 4d.

https://www.geogebra.org/m/mzycqzgt

This seems like a fine little tool for seeing stuff.

The 3d shadow of the tesseract isn’t the tesseract though. We can’t actually see them, only the shadow. Thinking hard and looking at the shadows changes as we move the 4d points can let’s us intuit how they work though.

Whoah, I never said I wasn’t interested in the exchange, only that I wasn’t interested in the topic.
As someone who’s extremely insistent that it’s grossly improper to make any form of inferences beyond what is literally stated, I’m shocked you would make such a leap!

I think you’re persistently confusing me with someone else. I perfectly understand your point, and have never had any doubt about what you intended to say. I never even disagreed with you on the topic.
I clarified someone else’s point to you, and you started explaining to me how they made unreasonable assumptions, which is what I disappeared with.

Intellectual property laws apply to open and closed source software and developers equally. When you make a statement about legal culpability for an action by one group, it makes sense to assume that statement applies to the other because in the eyes of the law and most people people in context there’s no distinction between them.

No one is unclear that you were only referring to one group anymore. That’s abundantly clear.

My point is that you’re being overly defensive about someone else making a normal assumption about the logic behind your argument. And you’re directing that defensiveness at someone who never even made that assumption.

I’m really not interested in the topic. I’m talking because I explained what someone else meant and you started responding as though that was an opinion or argument I was making.

That’s not “applying the argument consistently”, it’s removing context, overgeneralizing the argument, and applying a strawman based on a twisted version of it.

It’s really not.
It’s not unreasonable for someone to think “developers who use copy written code from AI aren’t liable for infringement” applies to closed source devs as well as open, and to disagree because they don’t like one of those.
It’s perfectly valid for you to also disagree and say the statement shouldn’t apply both ways, but that doesn’t make the other statement somehow a non-sequitor.

Alright. I didn’t see any gotchas or argument, and didn’t make the comment.

That being said, reading the context I assume you’re referring to, it hardly reads like anything more than talking about the implication of the idea you shared.
Disagreeing because applying the argument consistently results in an undesirable outcome isn’t objectionable.

I don’t really see it as a divergence from the topic, since it’s the other side of a developer not being responsible for the code the LLM produces, like you were saying.
In any case, it’s not like conversations can’t drift to adjacent topics.

Besides, closed-source code developers could’ve been stealing open-source code all along. They don’t really need AI to do that.

Yes, but that’s the point of laundering something. Before if you put foss code in your commercial product a human could be deposed in the lawsuit and make it public and then there’s consequences. Now you can openly do so and point at the LLM.

People don’t launder money so they can spend it, they launder money so they can spend it openly.

Regardless, it wasn’t even my comment, I just understood what they were saying and I’ve already replied way out of proportion to how invested I am in the topic.

I believe what they’re referring to is the training of models on open source code, which is then used to generate closed source code.
The break in connection you mention makes it not legally infringement, but now code derived from open source is closed source.

Because of the untested nature of the situation, it’s unclear how it would unfold, likely hinging on how the request was formed.

We have similar precedent with reverse engineering, but the non sentient tool doing it makes it complicated.

Uuh, 1) kids regularly love vegetables if they’re prepared right, and pretty often if they’re prepared wrong because kids are weird and will eat a bowl of corn and rice. 2) do you actually think they’re making the assertion we should let kids decide policy initiatives? Or that a billboard can’t make a joke when saying you should ride the train?

That actually makes security much, much worse. It’s training users to make authenticating part of their continuous routine, so when a random site that looks like the login page asks for their password you’re inclined to simply proceed, since diligence has an excessively big time cost.
Same goes for mfa. If validating every request, particularly if you use a service with push based mfa, takes too much effort then people just fulfill the request.

The ideal is that you only authenticate when it’s actually important, as an exceptional circumstance that makes the user pause and make sure things are good. Changing the bank account your pay gets sent to warrants an authentication.
“You’ve been using email for 20 minutes” doesn’t.

Realistically your session should probably be about the length of a workday with a little buffer for people who work a little longer to not end up with 99% of a session sitting open on their laptop. 9-10 hours should be fine.

You want the machine credentials that a laptop uses to talk to the mail server, or the hr software uses to talk to the doobips to have short credentials so if someone hacks the mail server they have a short window to use them, but that doesn’t impact user authentication requirements.

You don’t get to claim you care about trans kids while voting for a government that supports Israeli Hitler.

Says who? Did your way result in less genocide, or more?

democrats will try to stand behind marginalized communities as though we can math our way into ignoring US imperialism and murder

Who said anything about ignoring? It’s harm reduction. The lesser of two evils is still evil. But you know what? It’s less evil. If I have to pick between two dead Palestinians and a dead trans kid, or two dead Palestinians, I’ll pick the option with less dead kids 100% of the time.
Saying that we can’t do something to help people because it’s accepting something bad is the same argument conservatives use to argue against needle exchange programs or sex ed. No one should be using heroin, so we shouldn’t try to keep them from getting HIV.

This is what’s called having a semblance of moral principles.

I’m sure the children who were bombed are deeply appreciative of your intact principles.

Here’s an analogy: If I offer you a glass of lemonade with 50% urine and another glass with 10% urine, are you happy to drink the latter because of the difference?

Are you going to choose to drink the first because the situation is bullshit?

The suggestion that we should continue voting for the lesser evil given this trajectory fits the definition of insanity.

And leaning into it or doing nothing is just suicidal.

A lot of people view it differently.

We draw a line at literal genocide

To many people, you don’t. You require a candidate to be sufficiently anti-genocide in their addresses before you’ll vote for them, but you don’t view stopping an openly pro genocide politician as reason to vote for someone.

Seems like every time the GOP puts up some God-awful Republican, leftists and progressives are expected to get in line and vote for establishment milquetoast candidates.

Yes. Those shit candidates are at least less antithetical to our wishes. You don’t get “none of the above”. You get milquetoast or you get Hitler.

Instead of blaming the politicians for failing to represent their voter-base, you blame the voters for failing to support their politicians.

That’s the argument used against people who say people need to go to the movies to support the studios. The difference is that you will get one of the politicians, and in the US it’s one of two.

So pick: the mildest of diplomatic pressure against genocide while changing little of the structural support, or vocal encouragement with increased facilitation and also we bomb kids more, setup internment camps and try to kill trans kids.

What a lot of people see is people being given that choice and saying “they’re both the same to me”, and later indignantly saying how they’re against something they did literally nothing to stop and being angry at the people who didn’t sell it hard enough.

No one is owed your vote, and the Democratic party is really missing opportunities to appeal to a disgruntled leftward segment of the population, but it’s confounding to hear more vitriol at the party that didn’t do enough to sell not letting Hitler take office, than at the one that actually put him there, and usually coming from those that wouldn’t say no to Hitler without being sufficiently courted first.