You can totally hack a plane using a buffer overflow. C airlines don’t check how many tickets they sell on a single flight. Usually if you overbook a flight, they will simply reallocate some of their buffer into business class. However, if you buy a bunch of tickets to one flight at once, you can craft a scenario where you overwrite the pilot.

Yea a plane hijacking is totally like a buffer overflow.

Bleeding is also a bit like a buffer overflow, since blood goes in a place it’s not supposed to. Hurricanes are another example of a buffer overflow. Accidentally wearing a shirt inside out? Buffer overflow. Unskippable ads are buffer overflow. War is buffer overflow. I had my buffer overflown by some guy claiming to be a wallet inspector. Aliens are a type of buffer overflow. I sometimes have buffer overflow with my girlfriend. Buffer overflow was an inside job. I put too much shine paste in my polishing machine and you better believe that was a buffer overflow.

When a train crashes into a station building, that’s not a buffer overflow, though. That’s a buffer overrun.

Standard ML the programming language or standard as in conventional and ML as in machine learning?

Fuck it, we’re going back to bang paths. ficix!hetzner!awful!self please add support for this.

Now that is leaving your mark in history as an academic.

Percentages are cheating, especially percentages below 50.

I’ll predict a 49% chance Mont Blanc erupts tomorrow, covering half of Europe in chocolate.

Basilisks commuting

https://xcancel.com/equine__dentist/status/1832568341740851266

AWS is only tolerated because product managers ask for it, not because engineers like it; AWS is shit.

Yes, but the competition is hardly much better. Well, maybe Google is, I didn’t touch it much back when I still did public cloud stuff. Azure leads with “look, our VPS offering is called ‘Virtual Machines’ instead of ‘EC2’, isn’t that simple?” and then proceeds to make everything even clunkier and more complicated than AWS. And don’t get me started on the difference in technical and customer support from the two.

There is no moat.

You keep reiterating this, but I still need you to explain the implications. Ok sure, you can run a model on a home computer. Nonwithstanding that those models still amount to overhyped novelty toys, home computers are also capable of running servers, databases, APIs, office suites, you name it. Still, corporations and even consumers are renting these as SaaS and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

The AI fad is highly hype driven, so there’s still incentive to be the one who trains the latest, biggest and shiniest model, and that still takes datacenters’ worth of specialized compute and training data. LLM-based AI is an industry built on FOMO. How long until that shiny new LLM torrent you got from 4chan is so last season?

And the OP is correct. Llama is not open source. “The neighbors” only took it from Meta in the same sense warez sites have taken software forever. Only in this case the developer was the one committing the copyright infringement.

Creation Date: 2024-09-09T14:09:21Z

Nice one

The only thing I’ve seen from Lex Friedman was his interview of Brian Kernighan. For most of it I just thought it was very kind of BWK to patiently indulge this kid, who was clearly still new and unaccustomed to public speaking or researching his interview subjects, despite the weirdly professional gear setup and production.

Uhm, actually the correct term is epheb oligopoly.

I think it’s less america-brained and more just straight up cryptomonarchist.

For what it’s worth STAR looks like something Yud wishes he would design, or would design if he could. A complicated system that assumes a highly informed electorate and allows for counterintuitive victory conditions sounds exactly like something appealing to him.

It’s not that he invented anything, even something that was already invented. He claimed he could invent a new system if he wanted to and when asked to deliver, just namedropped an existing system.

Addendum: Today I remembered Microsoft Defender for Business exists, so fuck them and the anticompetitive horse they rode here on lmao.

Also, that Musk proofread the article is just the cherry on top

Well, he is a founder of companies like PayPal and Tesla, legally speaking.

When pressed about the kind of system he could invent, he says STAR voting.

Has anyone asked Mark Frohnmayer if he also used the eating a bowl full of paper and vomiting technique when creating the STAR system?

I could invent a state of the art cryptographic hashing function after half a litre of vodka with my hands tied behind my back. Coincidentally the algorithm I’d independently invent from first principles would happen to be exactly the same as BLAKE3 so instead of me having to explain it, you can just skim the Wikipedia page like I did.

You think wood glue in your pizza sauce is great? Try prions!

I’m almost surprised Yud is so clueless about election systems.

He’s (lol) supposedly super into math and game theory so the failure mode I expected was for him to come up with some byzantine time-independent voting method that minimizes acausal spoiler effect at the cost of condorcet criterion or whatever. Or rather, I would have expected him to claim he’s working on such a thing and throwing all these buzzwords around. Like in MOR where he knows enough advanced science words to at least sound like he knows physics beyond high school level.

Now I have to update my priors to take into account that he barely knows what an electoral system is. It’s a bit like if the otherwise dumb guy who still seems a huge military nerd suddenly said “the only assault gun worse than the SA80 is the .223”. For once you’d expect him to know enough to make a dumb hot take instead of just spouting gibberish but no.

Skeleton warriors!

It’s fractally wrong and bonkers even by Yud tweet standards.

The worst common electoral system after First Past The Post - possibly even a worse one - is the parliamentary republic

I’ll charitably assume based on this he just means proportional representation in general. Specifically he seems to be thinking of a party list type method, but other proportional electoral systems exist and some of them like D’Hondt and various STV methods do involve voting for individuals and not just parties.

with its absurd alliances and frequently falling governments

The alliances are often thought of as a feature, but it’s also a valid, if subjective, criticism. Not sure what he means by “frequently falling governments”, though. The UK uses FPTP and their PMs seem to resign quite regularly.

A possible amendment is to require 60% approval to replace a Chief Executive; who otherwise serves indefinitely, and appoints their own successor if no 60% majority can be scraped together.

Why 60%? Why not 50% or 70% or two thirds? Approval of whom, the parliament or the population? Would this be approval in the sense of approval voting where you can express approval for multiple candidates or in the sense of the candidate being the voter’s first choice à la FPTP? What does the role of a dictator Chief Executive involve? Would it be analogous to something like POTUS, or perhaps PM of the UK or maybe some other country?

The parliament’s main job would be legislation, not seizing the spoils of the executive branch of government on a regular basis.

Good news! In most parliamentary republics that is already the main job of the parliament, at least on paper. If you want to start nitpicking the “on paper” part, you might want to elaborate on how your system would prevent this kind of abuse.

Anything like this ever been tried historically?

Yea there’s a long historical tradition of states led by an indefinitely serving chief executive, who would pass the office to his chosen successor. A different candidate winning the supermajority approval has typically been seen as the exception rather than the rule under such systems, but notable exceptions to this exist. One in 1776 saw a change of Chief Executive in some British overseas colonies, another one in late 18th century France ended the dynasty of their Chief Executive, and a later one in 1917 had the Russian Chief Executive Nikolai Alexandrovich Romanov lose the office to a firebrand progressive leader.

ChatGPT was incapable of understanding the question.

Now to be fair to ChatGPT, it seems that even the famed genius polymath Eliezer Yudkowsky failed to understand his own question.