TechNom (nobody)

Google has discovered that FOSS software under their full control is better than pure proprietary software for monopoly abuse and rent seeking. With FOSS software, they enjoy the automatic popularity that they otherwise would have had to market very hard for. At the same time, none of Google’s free software is truly free. Google devs regularly neglect and reject overwhelming user requirements (jpegxl in chrome is probably the best example of this) and choose designs that clearly favor the company monetarily. It isn’t even practical for normal people to fork their projects.

Google often uses their ‘FOSS’ projects to twist open standards or the market to their advantage. Android and Chrome are very significant players in this regard. Using Chrome, Google even managed to make the W3C standard too complicated for others to make alternative browsers easily. Google has similar ambitions in the multimedia market. They want to replace the monopolistic media formats with quasi-monopolistic formats like webp and av1 instead of truly open ones like jpegxl.

It’s still possible on almost any distro with pyenv or asdf-vm.

We need three four things:

1. A way to poison the data that will throw off the training without causing perceptible difference to humans. As I remember it, many image AIs were sensitive to a peculiar noise that was imperceptible to humans.
2. A skiplist of AI data stealers, so that their IPs/domains can be blocked in bulk.
3. Eventually, the above technique will become useless as AI data stealers will start using dynamic IPs and botnets to bypass the skiplists. We’ll need to throttle or block data to visitors based on pattern recognition. For example, if the visitor requests linked pages in rapid succession. Or if the request interval is uniform or pseudo random, instead of genuinely random.
4. If the pattern recognition above is triggered, we could even feed the bots with data from AI models, instead of blocking or throttling. Let the AI eat its own s**t.

The licenses alone are enough to ensure that the opposite happens.

You can uninstall the sudo application and add sudo as an alias for run0 in your shell initialization script. That’s better than them renaming run0 to sudo, because that will prevent people from running the real sudo if they want it.

They aren’t talking about using recursion instead of loops. They are talking about the map method for iterators. For each element yielded by the iterator, map applies a specified function/closure and collects the results in a new iterator (usually a list). This is a functional programming pattern that’s common in many languages including Python and Rust.

This pattern has no risk of stack overflow since each invocation of the function is completed before the next invocation. The construct does expand to some sort of loop during execution. The only possible overhead is a single function call within the loop (whereas you could have written it as the loop body). However, that won’t be a problem if the compiler can inline the function.

The fact that this is functional programming creates additional avenues to optimize the program. For example, a chain of maps (or other iterator adaptors) can be intelligently combined into a single loop. In practice, this pattern is as fast as hand written loops.

People are quick to judge without considering the circumstances. Wasn’t the customer’s attitude equally wrong? Aren’t you implying that the service person should have let her bully him?

I agree that merge is the easier strategy with amateurs. By amateurs I mean those who cannot be bothered to learn about rebase. But what you really lose there is a nice commit history. It’s good to have, even if your primary strategy is merging. And people tend to create horrendous commit histories when they don’t know how to edit them.

I’m yet to hear anyone saying that chatGPT can navigate the complex series of design decisions needed to create a cohesive app (unless of course, it was trained on something exactly the same). Many people report spending an inordinate amount of time rectifying the mistakes these LLMs make. It sounds like a glorified autofill (I haven’t used them yet). I shudder to think about the future of the software ecosystem if an entire generation is trained to rely entirely on them to create code.