Defamation would require that Riot communicate the fact that the user is a cheater to third parties and for that communication to cause measurable reputational harm. Privately denying the user's account/computer access to a game does neither of those things, it's just a shitty thing to do.

Linux containers share the kernal with the host. How exactly is a Linux container going to "natively" share the Windows kernal? You are always going to need to use a Linux VM as the Linux container host on windows. Having support built into the OS without having to explicitly install docker desktop or docker on WSL is a nice convenience, that's all. There are plenty of non-windows-native tools that can be delivered as a container now without worrying that the user has docker installed.

Communism is an economic system. It's orthogonal to government. You can have authoritarian communism or you can have anarcho-communism or anything in between. Just as the existence of banana republics or fascist Germany doesn't negate the existence of democratic capitalist countries, the USSR or PRC does not discount the possibility of a more egalitarian communist state in the future.

I think the lesson of the 20th century is really to be suspicious of vanguard revolutionary movements with a charismatic leader, whatever their economic ideology. But reducing the complex reality of political thought and discourse to a 1 dimensional "ring" is is just so reductive it's thought terminating.

(And China, BTW, is, at this point, more hyper capitalist than the US could ever dream of. Still not democratic though).

At least here in Boston Verizon pays rent on the land occupied by their poles, so they are paying for the right of way. Them being in arrears for said rent famously caused a catfight with the city government that delayed the rollout of FIOS for years.

This is the kinda thinking that crashed two space shuttles. There are worse things than not shipping, even if it means the project gets scrubbed. Sometimes safety or durability has a higher priority than shipping. An older less efficient system that works is more valuable than a new one that is unreliable. A new capability isn't worth it if it gets you killed.

What I mean is that the following is from agile's founding document:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

Try telling the FDA you value "Individuals and interactions" over following a defined CGMP or "working software over documentation" and see how far it gets you.

If your design and implementation is subject to a very heavy, long, and expensive V&V process, you can not "spiral" on them. You can't freeze a design if your requirements are subject to customer change at the end of every 2 week sprint.

And in 20 years when those of us who are 40-50 are retired or dead and there is no pipeline of fresh talent that has spent 20 years becoming experts to guide the AI, then I guess society just collapses. Good job everyone!

It really depends. If you are working on a system that can get someone killed or financially ruin a large institution (or sometimes both), the precepts of the agile manifesto kinda fall apart. You don't want to prioritize speed, shipping, running code, and loose conventions over rigorous requirements, thoughtful design, and risk management when you are writing a clinical, financial, or on-mission military software system.

Throw them in the Hague maybe? Just a thought.

But a 65" monitor (assuming you can find one and afford it) makes a lousy TV.

I was responding to a parent that said that you should just buy a monitor instead of a smart TV. I was pointing out that monitors and TV fill different use cases and have different pricing scales so they aren't necessarily drop in replacements.

A monitor the size of a modern 65 inch TV would be prohibitively expensive, if you could even find one. Even so, monitors have limited support for home theatre HDMI features like HDR, ARC, and CEC compared to TVs

I think it is hard to really air-gap these model test environments because the agent basically needs a network connection to talk to the model under test. The model is probably running on a room full of server racks that might not be practical to take offline.

It's a pretty big difference. The agent only gets the tools you give it. Also, when talking about commercial systems, the agent is more than just the model and harness. There's also an API layer that includes a system prompt the user has no control over that steers the model. There are also often watchdog processes (which may be agents in their own right) that are examining inputs and outputs for potentially dangerous or TOS-violating usage.

"Reward" is just colloquial jargon for "reinforcing the model weights used to arrive at the correct answer". It's just a lot more convenient to say. We use that term because it is analogous to the how we think our own brain's reward system uses dopamine to reinforce neuron connections involved in certain behaviors. e.g. a toddler eats their vegetables, you praise them, brain releases dopamine, the neural links involved in that behavior get reinforced.

This is why systems like this should never be allowed to be built in the first place and should be destroyed wherever they are found.