They were supposedly just poisoning the prompts. You'd say "show me vikings" and they'd change it to "show me vikings black" or such, including a random ethnic heritage on the end. Some people exposed this by asking for comic book style images, which got words from the prompt in the text boxes, or by adding "and a sign which says" to the end of their prompts.

I guess later they might add the words to the start, but similar creative prompting would likely help expose this as well.

That touches a key element which many people seem to overlook. In this type of kernel development, correctness rules above all else. If something is incorrect, especially if it violates the contracts of the operating system or potentially loses data, the harsh lesson will follow.

Linus has absolutely had serious problems with being a jerk in his reactions, but the topics he is triggered by are nearly always about correctness.

Prove that it works, have data to back it up, be able to prove that the behavior is correct and it will get accepted. Some people may be upset if it modifies their domain or steps on toes, but the group is technical enough to know that correctness trumps emotion. Even if people don't like it, they can't argue against proven merits of correctness. Maintainers can and do add features they don't personally like after they're shown to be correct behavior.

Yes, Linus throws serious fits, but in the newsworthy ones he tends to be spot-on about the correctness. Usually he explodes after code is demonstrably wrong, and he can back it up with data or a use-case. Yes, he admits he has been a jerk at times, but very often they're around correctness. He often states his first rule is Don't Break Userspace. He has famously lost his temper quite often when people introduce serious bugs, or piggyback bugs on top of a broken system. A big blowup happened when someone imagined up a new return value from a system call that violated kernel requirements. A big blowup happened when a kernel maintainer was trying to use a compliance tool that ended up breaking kernel functionality. Go look through the cases of when he exploded and you'll see the reasons behind it tend to be the same: they really were bugs and correctness issues.

The explosion isn't "nice", but he'd already tried quiet correction earlier in the thread, people had mentioned moving it elsewhere until proven correct, and Linus had already addressed bugs in the system due to that dev. If the dev had been able to prove his system correct first and foremost, even if it implemented the unnecessary feature, that correctness would likely have satisfied the thread. In this case the developer couldn't justify it, but if he had been able to demonstrate correctness, a reply like: "I can show this behavior is correct by the book, someone can modernize and optimize it if needed but this implementation ensures it doesn't break userspace expectations around inode uniqueness" would have seen a totally different response. Instead he doubled-down on something he wasn't certain was correct, ended up not being correct, and took the heat because of it.

Similar, but it's a civil suit.

Since Reddit is a non-party (they aren't the one being sued) there are many limitations. For example, you can usually use a subpoena to get an original document from a third party if you know the document already exists and have already seen it but need an original. There are many different rules and laws about what can be requested and what cannot. Generally you can't go on a "fishing expedition" with a non-party. In contrast for someone who is a party, if you can convince the judge that something smells fishy enough you're allowed to go fishing for documents in civil suits.

Ultimately all the different rules give broad discretion to the judge. The companies file a motion to compel turning over the documents, and the judge hears arguments with a 'more likely than not' standard, and the 'balance of harms' done in either direction. The judge also considers concepts like the likelihood of success, if there is the possibility of irreparable harm (like revealing trade secrets), if something is harmful to the status quo (like discovery would harm or help something else beyond the trial), and other factors. Judges also need to consider if there are other, better sources for the information. They look at the rights of individuals versus the rights of society as a whole, the harms and benefits to each, the costs and difficulties and burdens, and much more.

Judges balance all of it and try their best. So if they get a motion to compel discovery by a non-party, the civil violation is relatively minor but the document would cause people to lose jobs or close businesses, or if the consequences of the subpoena could cost millions of dollars for a violation that has a maximum penalty of thousands of dollars, the judge can deny the request.

Most likely it will be like the past cases. There is very little the studios can gain, the value is low but the potential damage is high, the person's ability to engage in anonymous speech can be seriously harmed. The past judgements showed the judge understood the extremely limited value; it puts a huge target on the individual and does great harm, but the only benefits to the studio is that it might give an address that might match a known infringer, but doesn't give any actual evidence of infringement, nor identity of a person who might have infringed. Huge harm for nearly no social benefit, the harms outweigh the benefit.

It isn't the planting of trees that is a problem. Planting trees overall is good.

Planting thousands of exactly the same tree in a single area is not as good, creating a monoculture. Planting non-native trees can be harmful, especially if the new trees need irrigation or other care. Otherwise, they'll just die rather than be useful.

Encouraging biodiversity and growth or regrowth of forests with a wide range of plants, that's a better approach.

But the nuance is lost in headlines and showy low-budget projects.

You just pointed out there's precedent for hopeless billionaires tilting at windmills.

I never said he'd win, though precedent implies that maybe he could get American Samoa on board.

The term I have used for decades is "evidence they can do the job".

The best evidence is having actually done the job successfully. If a candidate has years of work experience they've proven they can do it. If they can show hobby projects it provides evidence, but generally not as strong.

If they don't have years of work experience as evidence, then degrees and certifications provide some amount of evidence. The candidate may not be skilled at the job, but they have enough of a background to get the certificate. 3-year and 4-year degree programs mean there is a basic breadth and depth of knowledge, it may be shallow but they've been exposed to it at least.

That's also the point of interview questions, the quizzes and tests many companies use, all of them are to provide evidence that the person can do the job.

The big remaining issue is the drop.

The problem it solves, which the reporter clearly missed, is called the last mile problem.

Instead of a delivery driver stopping at every home or business on the route, the delivery driver follows a route with some slow moving areas. At each stop or slow moving area, the truck serves as a platform for drones to launch or land. Instead of a truck driver making 30 deliveries to a subdivision in an hour, they spend 5 minutes, and hit 10x the number of neighborhoods. Different areas will have different effectiveness, but most regions could have some variations that work, even if it means drones dropping off a secure cluster box.

To the accountants and shareholders it means a huge cost savings, so more profits to the logistics business. Fuel and delivery drivers are expensive.

Give it a few years and that will just sound like complaining that a candy bar costs a whole quarter dollar now.

What interests me more here is whether this implies that Bezos will try running for President soon.

Interesting read. I am not sure it is valid to combine them based on the question from the survey developer.

I will listen to the headhunters and recruiters because I might learn of an amazing opportunity. I tell them to send me info if they want, it doesn't hurt me to read. So for the questions I am willing.

However, I like my job and I am not considering leaving, nor am I looking for a new one. So I am not actively considering it.

given the range of questions they list, this seems a little surprising. Keeping your ears open is a survival skill, even if you aren't hunting you should be aware of the job environment.

Yeah, it was expected.

It seems every time self driving cars have been in the news for problems, it was a Cruise car. Read about traffic jams, cars piling up, intersections blocked, and Cruise was the cause.

The other companies seem to have solved the issues, and based on videos that occasionally make the rounds, are far better than human drivers not just during an unexpected swerve but at detecting and avoiding them before they take swift responses.

The word "initially" there scares me.

Proxies and relays used voluntarily are wonderful and can do many amazing things. They can also be used to hide and obscure many terrible things. Relaying information through a third party comes with quite a long list of benefits and drawbacks, and for some situations they can be amazing.

Proxies and relays used involuntarily are unacceptable. The potential for abuse and misuse is too great. They create a MITM vulnerability, and anything other than a specific, intentional, revocable opt in is not okay. Creating a MITM vulnerability should not be opt out.

Although true, unfortunately we're talking about Microsoft.

Smaller businesses and publishers are great at this because they're hungry. Big businesses are looking for numbers on the balance sheet, and when they've got over 200 billion dollars a year, those need to be big numbers.

Games that aren't bringing in profits in the high six figure range are just noise, and realistically, even bringing in single-million-dollar profits is noise at Microsoft. That means gross revenues of 50M, 80M, or more just to show up on the listing, rather than being rounding errors. Even if people think they'd like the game, they're not going to revive Space Quest with Roger Wilco, or once-off 1980's hits like Pitfall, Kaboom, or H.E.R.O. because these aren't multimillion dollar franchises.

Microsoft Games is looking for billion dollar breakthroughs and 100-million-per-year cornerstone projects. They might throw one or two small ones out, but they will be statistical noise driven by marketing at keeping small sectors happy, or an executive's pet project allocating a few million dollars that they shaved off a 'real' project like Halo.

Yes, but in the opposite way to what you meant.

The character Dick The Butcher, a mass murderer, was part of a gang wanting to overthrow the government and enable mob rule. He was planning to extend his string of mayhem by killing the lawyers, so nobody can be prosecuted for crimes under the new regime.