Sounds like you're running up against the context window of whatever LLM you're using. Try converting your code to a minified abstract syntax tree first and pass that to your LLM, and ask it what full text it needs in addition to that. It should stay within the context window much better that way.
I prefer the Martian bear.
Forgetting he exists would be the best punishment.
I am sure you know this and are just trying to shit on the editors, as one does on
I have the opposite, can always get in with IPv6, but IPv4 results in me getting a lot of loops.
I suspect what you're seeing (and what I'm seeing) are both coincidences and reCAPTCHA doesn't care. From what I've read, reCAPTCHA only cares about IP addresses when it suspects you're using a server as an egress point (suggesting a hacked server), and blocking IPv6 would be insane given how few IPv6 servers there are, and what proportion of the consumer Internet uses IPv6 addresses by default.
Because it's marketing.
Generative AI is not unsafe in the way GenAI advocates are claiming. It's unsafe in general - it's causing education deficits, it's causing headaches for companies that have adopted it who no longer have business knowledge over how their own companies operate, it's slamming websites with bogus requests and causing the web to go offline, and when the web isn't offline people are discouraged from visiting websites by "AI summaries" that supposedly answer the questions that you'd normally go to the websites to get answers for. Also the false information given by "AI summaries" has probably caused a problem or two.
But in terms of taking over nuclear missiles and launching them at capital cities, and all the other ludicrous genAI claims made over the last few weeks by employees of OpenAI and Anthropic suggesting they plan to exterminate humanity, no, it's a fucking word predictor on steriods, it just doesn't have that power.
OpenAI and Anthropic are spreading this lie not because anyone who works for those companies believes it, but because a real AI, the type of thing that people are expecting something called "AI" to actually be, would be capable of reasoning that humans are the enemy (etc), and might go Skynet on humanity. If they say "Nah, you're all fine, what we have here is spicy autocomplete", then their potential for an IPO goes down the toilet.
These are dishonest companies that are doing everything that they can to pump up a tool with marginal utility in order to run off with the money before it becomes revealed that, no, their tech is unsustainable and was never as good as the cultists claimed anyway.
That's why politicians are talking about kill switches. They're being duped by Altman and friends into thinking that's necessary.
> Any programming language needs the equivalent of Rust's "unsafe"
Not really, no.
> Without it would be impossible to do any input or output.
Have you ever used any programming languages other than C, C++, etc? The important thing is that the language itself implements an interface between the OS and programs written in that language. In addition to that, most usually have an ABI that can be used to glue assembler libraries to the language - this is not the equivalent of "unsafe", because it's not part of the language, and a person downloading an application can see right away that it includes external libraries that interface with it.
Unsafe is in Rust because... well, Rust is designed to try to make memory safety attractive to devs who traditionally don't like being told what to do or that their favorite language sucks. Which is why, for example, advocates go to great lengths to claim Rust doesn't have garbage collection when, actually, it does, it's just not mark and sweep. Rust is as much about public relations and trying to get people to stop assuming they have to sacrifice safety for efficiency and low level access as it is about producing a useful programming languages.
And, unfortunately, part of that PR is to say "Look, we even have an "unsafe" keyword so you can get rid of (some of) our restrictions on you for those rare times you actually need it", and the group Rust is aimed at, of course, go "Oh, I can do this with a 2% speed up if I use unsafe, so I'm going to do the unsafe version, that's what makes Rust great" *insert Naked Gun facepalming scene here*.
I like Rust. But let's not pretend "unsafe" is a positive thing, or that most languages need it. Rust needs it because of its intended audience, but plenty of languages don't let the code itself be unsafe. Some have an unsafe keyword, some allow linking with unsafe assembler packages, and some... honest... don't have either, and your code is only unsafe if your compiler/interpreter is.
> Broadcast networks have to give the different major parties equal time.
The rule that this applies to late night talk shows is literally months old and has no basis in any new legislation. It was introduced by the FCC on a whim basically because they didn't want Colbert to interview the same person as Kimmel.
Under exceptions the same Wikipedia article, correctly, points out the current administration changed these rules to apply to... late night talk shows:
If the airing was within a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast, or an on-the-spot news event, the equal-time rule does not apply. Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until the FCC issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption.[3][4]
This is a new interpretation of the equal time rule designed to make it difficult for late night shows to interview politicians, and if it wasn't for SCOTUS being nakedly partisan these days, it wouldn't muster a single court's scrutiny.
There is no equal time rule that applies to late night talk shows. This came up with the Colbert thing last year when Paramount similarly caved into FCC threats about it. This is a rule the FCC have arbitrarily decided to re-interpret despite decades of precedent.
Yes, Don-boy, I called you a fuckup. Tell the FCC to ban the internet.
I hate to say it like that but it feels like the U.S. is slowly turning more and more into a dictatorship. Isn't this the kind of things you have to do in a dictatorship? I feel for the U.S. people right now.
There has been erosion over many years, but Trump is doing it's best to make it one right now.
Lucky for us he's an utter fuckup.
You're still a moron. Fascism is not "Anything the government does that's bad", it's a system of corruption and abuse of power.
You may not agree with the vaccine mandate (because you're probably a moron as we've just established) but a vaccine mandate is not an abuse of power, literally the only incentive to do it is for the public good. It's not being done to enrich those in power, it's not being done to damage opponents, or to scapegoat powerless groups. It's not even being done to cement the power of those in power outside of persuading voters that they're competent. It's being done to prevent the spread of a disease.
That's text book "not fascism at all". The only thing it has in common with fascism is that "(whines) the government did something! It did something I tell you!" which is a pretty fucking stupid definition of fascism, and is the same definition a lot of Americans think applies to socialism, which... I mean, you fuckers have never heard of trade unions, the cooperative movement, independent private voluntary communes, or Robert Owen? Really?
If the government does something, and it's for the public good, rather than to cause unnecessary harm to the powerless or opponents or to steal from people, it's not fascism.
I'm more interested in the game than in the packaging.
Insignia sells dumb TV, at least when I had to get a TV for my 80 year old in-laws a couple of years ago. (The whole "You must have a smart TV" thing is so stupid even when privacy issues and nerds aren't taken into account. It's like mandatory smartphones, or mandatory car driving.)
I can't say I was impressed by the quality however.
The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
