If your code allows an attacker to just hammer the authentication API, you suck as a programmer and should feel bad.
If your code allows an attacker to just hammer the authentication API, you suck as a programmer and should be fired. FTFY.
I'm not even a programmer, but if I was tasked with working on authentication I'd make finding a way to limit failed attempts a high priority.
Sure, they had to sell their stock, including the parts needed to make the machines. At that time they were also still at least assembling them.
The Mac IIci was on the market for over 3 years before it got replaced. You never see that kind of longevity anymore.
IIci September 1989, Quadra 700 October 1991, in almost the same case. Two years, one month.
Let's see what that link provides:
"This category explores how manipulative groups regulate and dominate their members’ actions and behaviors through strict rules, rewards, and punishments, limiting individual autonomy."
Hijab, burka, yarmulke, baptism, circumcision, the wearing of 'mixed' clothing
Examining the tactics of manipulative organizations to control information flow through censorship and propaganda, restricting members’ access to outside perspectives.
- I give you the Church of Scientology
Focuses on psychological techniques used by such groups to shape beliefs and attitudes, suppressing critical thinking and promoting conformity.
- I give you the Mormon Church
Explores how manipulative organizations manipulate emotions, fostering dependency and loyalty through love-bombing, guilt, and fear-based indoctrination.
- "If you're bad you won't see your family in heaven" really hard to say that's anything other than fear-based coercion
I am by no means an expert on religion(s) but to say religion isn't a cult is to whitewash it into respectability. Hence, 'A large *popular* cult'
This statement was cute, even funny, the first few times that it was used. That was because it was such an absurd way of making that point.
That statement was stupid, even absurd the first times that it was used — by the Reich wing. The entire reason I'm still using it when speaking to them is to rub their noses in how fucking stupid it was.
But, after this statement has been repeated so many times, it's just fucking stupid now.
You're two steps behind me as usual, but at least you're getting there.
You should consider abandoning it before people start thinking that you are stupid.
Insert Travolta looking around meme here. This is me, looking for fucks.
1. That's why I gave two sources, dummy.The second source is a detailed dataset and says in the FAQ: "Around 68% of UK households have access to off-street parking."
2. Who mentioned AI? i didn't. I said "rando YT". The notion that your paltry 24 hours in the UK plus watching some YT videos gives you insight into what off-street parking is like in the UK is completely absurd. You cannot seriously think this gives you any kind of meaningful insight. You might aw well pick out Templewood Avenue on Streetview and declare that every house in the UK has off-street parking, or Mabfield Road in Fallowfield and declare none does. I've lived here all my life, and I wouldn't presume ot guess what percentage of cars are parked off-street on the basis of what I've seen with my eyes, because there's 30m+ cars in the UK and 800,000 streets!
3. Once again, you fail at basic reading comprehension. "Will be able to" does not mean the same as "Will". It means "have the possibility". I say this because modern houses have electricity and houses with off-street parking have... off-street parking, and those are the only two pieces of infrastructure required for a household to able to provide home charging. You keep trying to make out this is really hard and really complicated, and it's not. 70% of cars are parked at houses with off-street parking. The owners of those houses could, if they choose, put in a home charger, and then those cars could be charged at home. It will cost the owners about £1000 and
Part of raising capital is convincing everyone that you need the money and have a good plan for it. We're probably better off if these companies don't actually buy even 10% of the things they are saying they will buy. The hype funding schemes are incredibly harmful to business long-term, but the short-term pay off is too attracted for them to ever stop doing it.
At my company we don't have any dedicated Rust programmers. We all have to learn it (eventually). So passing a review off to a Rust developer or dedicated team isn't an option for us.
C++ reviews go quick for us because we have 20 years of it in our code base. And our changes tend to either be a tiny increment at the core. Or a massive dump of support for a new feature or chip that not every reviewer is familiar with.
Oh look! You're exactly the coward I said you were. Too much of a pathetic wimp to stand behind what you say and back it up.
The reason I can say "you people" with confidence, is because you're so utterly fucking predictable that you can indeed be grouped together, because you all do the same things and behave in the same stupid way. Thick as pig shit and weak to boot.
if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.
We associate knowledge with intelligence. Ask a person about their favourite topic, and they will sound smarter.
An LLM knows far more than any human, so we tend to over-estimate their "IQ". The intelligence is still very real, the problem is just that we initially over-estimated it.
This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.
And how is that any different for humans? I can read them a ten-digit number and their context overflows. Dumb as hammers.
Why do you think a bunch of wet machinery with membranes and chemical messengers is intrinsically superior to linear algebra and calculus? Right now each is better at some tasks.
Saying AI is not real intelligence is like arguing that a submarine cannot really swim, or an aeroplane cannot really fly because the wings don't flap.
Well, yes. LLMs do not "feel anything" by design
What is a "feeling"? Is it like a "mood"? In humans, they are short-term states that affect behaviour.
No doubt an AI could be trained using rewards when it modified output in response to praise or insults. It could be trained to get impatient with poorly worded or dumb questions. You could also get such behaviour by modifying the system prompt, but that would be more like humans faking an emotion. What is the difference between a real and fake emotion? Self awareness and conscious control. System prompt is more analogous to acting.
Yes, we could in theory build AIs like the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, with "Genuine People Personalities". But should we?
It could be argued that current LLMs with flattery, and a desire to give helpful answers leading to hallucinations, already resemble the Nutri-Matic Drink Dispenser.
Get in early, get out early. It's a proven strategy for crypto and soon for AI.
If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.
Steve Jobs would not release a product until it actually did what they claimed it would do.
You mean like when he claimed the iPhone would be all webapps?
Let's face it, Jobs' only superpower was being a super dick to employees. This can only take you so far.
rsilvergun has been screaming even louder about how AI as we have it now it's already the end of the world, and that society isn't "ready" for it until he says it is.
Since he's living rent-free in your head, can we assume you're the one responsible for the rsilvergun-impersonating LLM spam?
APL hackers do it in the quad.
