That's pretty myopic thinking.

First of all, you're wrong. An attacker does not need "console" access but rather does need some kind of shell or execution ability. Given how sophisticated attacks today are often chains of vulnerabilities, I would not at all be surprised to see cPanel or other web vulnerabilities chained with this. Furthermore, if someone who doesn't work for you already has that level of access (meaning ability to execute a program on a computer), you already screwed up? Ok, and what if a trusted user account is compromised?

I don't understand the reaction.

Restore the repo from backup at the filesystem level, and the hash will be valid because it was valid at the time you backed up.

Even if this crazy minimum-age shit weren't happening, it's generally a good idea to give incorrect information. Have one birthday for site x and a different birthday for site y. Use one of your parent's birthdays here, and a celebrity's birthday there. Pollute the public data and cause confusion.

If minimum age laws help to encourage data public data pollution (all of which arguably shouldn't be public at all anyway), then at least one good thing will have come out of it.

Let's get it up to 84% of parents helping their kids bypass age checks.

For small values of "interesting" perhaps!

Point taken.

I think that's a fair statement. I'm personally not terribly interested in metaphysics. It's one of those topics that strikes me as like Christians arguments on the nature of Christ--is Christ purely divine? Is he both man and divine? Is he just a human? I feel like no matter how much energy I (or anyone!) expends on the metaphysical stuff, there's no answer, and not even a way of proving who is right or wrong. And, if I'm wrong? So what? A bit too ethereal for me!

In general, in the absence of decisive evidence either way, I would lean towards "it's possible" as opposed to "it's impossible."

do you think YouTube's subtitles are "appallingly bad"?

No, they're much, much better than having no generated titles at all, and by a lot.

mpv won't generate any subtitles for me; it can only show what's included in the data.

The LLMs weren't trained on a story about who won. How TF is it supposed to predict it in advance? That's not how LLMs work. Just train it on one more thing, a story about who won in 2026, and I'm sure you'll see its accuracy go up.

I have never seen anyone on slashdot claim that "it is all just known" when it comes to human intelligence or the brain. Literally, never. It is also absolutely incorrect to say that we have no clue how the human--we have many clues. I have said repeatedly that we don't know it all. What we do know is that humans exist, and humans have human intelligence.

I posited earlier that if it exists, it can be built.

If you want to change the conversation to a metaphysical conversation about the nature of reality and your spiritual beliefs, then who even cares about your complaints about LLM technology? If you insist that human-type intelligence can never be built or simulated, prove that it can never happen. That's just like, your opinion, man.

I had an interesting exchange with Gweihir recently. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seems to be of the opinion that it is not proven that the human brain is responsible for human intelligence, that there is something special about human intelligence (that he also believes cannot be simulated or reproduced), and that understanding human intelligence is potentially impossible.

He says "Ah, yes, the deranged claim that we know how the human mind works and it is purely mechanistic. You just excluded yourself from rational discussion by pushing a quasi-religious dogma with no supporting scientifically sound evidence." (Gweihir also often capitalizes "Science".)

I don't know what he believes, but it kind of seems like he believes there is something ineffably unique and special about human intelligence, and he's offended that people ascribe similar "intelligence" words to AI and LLMs. If he wasn't so anti-religious, I would think he was some kind of fundamentalist.

In any case, thank you for the article link to SciAm. It was interesting.

Yes, definitely.

I've been using both Claude and ChatGPT to help me understand a PL/B (a.k.a. DATABUS, similar to COBOL) codebase that I've inherited. It's been great to help with that. The constant gotos, subroutines spread across multiple files, modules, etc., can be really hard to follow across a million+ lines. The company that developed it originally had the same programmers working on it from 1970 to the 2010s. It's dead now, legacy, but still in usage. I have not implemented any LLM generated code, but I did use claude to analyze the compiler and the PL/B source to implement a C program that works with the same file database locking semantics.

If you want to keep up, learn to ~~code~~ hablar los idiomas más de moda.

Which means the Swiss run the risk of losing their national identity over the coming decades.

Surely that would be lost in the noise. Don't most cultures lose their identities about every 20-30 years anyway? I'm not quite the same person I was 25 years ago, and I bet you aren't either. Yet we are the medium through which culture waves.

Take a longer view and think of 1926. WTF do you today, have in common with them? Some things, but not others. Reading about their lives is much like meeting someone from the other side of the world.

The amount of time it takes the cultural Ship of Theseus to change all its components, is equal to the average human lifespan. Though you can detect the change of culture whenever you think in terms of decades, in day-to-day life it mainly manifests as "ooh neat, a new 'exotic' restaurant has opened!" Twenty or thirty years later, it isn't exotic anymore.

FreeBSD has a statically linked /rescue directory that still contains static vi. I haven't had to rely on those tools in years, but they can really come in handy when they're needed.

du -sh /rescue/vi
  12M /rescue/vi

:w!

actually ;-)

I've been using vi/vim for about 30 years. It does have a learning curve, but to get to "basic text editor" level there are really only about 5-6 commands you need to learn. I navigate around a file with regexes, syntax aware shortcuts, etc, and it's just so fast. I can't think of any reason to switch.

I assume this is a joke but vim is (always has been) built-in as long as Macs have been on OS X. Kinda hard to believe that Macs have been UNIX longer than they were on the original MacOS.

% which vim /usr/bin/vim

There's also a pretty reasonable gui port called MacVim, though I rarely use it.