V0ldek

joined 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

I see calling like Raegan's margin in 1984 "decisive"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Also, not that it’s the point but I have to note that technically most election victories are decisive, in the sense that they resolve the winner with little to no ambiguity (which is usually the case, even when the margin is narrow). In that sense, the only way Trump’s victory is not decisive is if you contest the legitimacy of the whole election.

This is such pedantry that you might as well say "the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines decisive as..."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Also it isn't? 50.2% to 48.1% of votes is not decisive in any sensible meaning of the word?

If you account for the turnout (around 60%) it means 30% voted for Trump and 28.9% for Harris, so "none of those" won decisively with 40%!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

My mom will never grok LibreOffice.

I tried to switch her for a long time but I gave up when she called me one day to complain that her coworker can't open a file she saved. Apparently the coworker in question was too, emm, talented to open an .odf

There are things that are outside of human reach. I can't even put into words the strife that MSFT caused in my house when they switched Internet Explorer to Edge and thus "broke" her computer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

We should harness this and power ChatGPT with it

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Audibly rolling my eyes

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Always has been.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok but how detailed can we get then

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

Слава Україні. The world has failed you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

I hope at least CPT does not have daylight's savings

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago (4 children)

What is controversial about Kolmogorov.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

"Very well, we shall resume in an hour" will never not crack me up

 

An excellent post by Ludicity as per usual, but I need to vent two things.

First of all, I only ever worked in a Scrum team once and it was really nice. I liked having a Product Owner that was invested in the process and did customer communications, I loved having a Scrum Master that kept the meetings tight and followed up on Retrospective points, it worked like a well-oiled machine. Turns out it was a one-of-a-kind experience. I can't imagine having a stand-up for one hour without casualties involved.

A few months back a colleague (we're both PhD students at TU Munich) was taking a piss about how you can enroll in a Scrum course as an elective for our doctor school. He was in general making fun of the methodology but using words I've never heard before in my life. "Agile Testing". "Backlog Grooming". "Scrum of Scrums". I was like "dude, none of those words are in the bible", went to the Scrum Guide (which as far as I understood was the only document that actually defined what "Scrum" meant) and Ctrl+F-ed my point of literally none of that shit being there. Really, where the fuck does any of that come from? Is there a DLC to Scrum that I was never shown before? Was the person who first uttered "Scrumban" already drawn and quartered or is justice yet to be served?

Aside: the funniest part of that discussion was that our doctor school has an exemption that carves out "credits for Scrum and Agile methodology courses" as being worthless towards your PhD, so at least someone sane is managing that.

Second point I wanted to make was that I was having a perfectly happy holiday and then I read the phrase "Agile 2" and now I am crying into an ice-cream bucket. God help us all. Why. Ludicity you fucking monster, there was a non-zero chance I would've gone through my entire life without knowing that existed, I hate you now.

 

Rather excellent post about LLMs being wrongness machines, lawyerbrain, and this fucking guy

alt textA stupid-looking picture of Sammy A stilised like the poster for the movie "Her". The title is "hurr" with a byline "a Sam Altman duh story".

Cosigned by the author I also include my two cents expounding on the cheque checker ML. Read the article first!

addendum

The most consequential failure mode — that both the text (...) and the numeric (...) converge on the same value that happens to be wrong (...) — is vanishingly unlikely. Even if that does happen, it's still not the end of the world.

I think extremely important is that this is a kind of error that even a human operator could conceivably make. It's not some unexplainable machine error, likely the scribbles were just exceedingly illegible on that one cheque. We're not introducing a completely new dangerous failure mode.

Compare that to, for example, using an LLM in lieu of a person in customer service. The failure mode here is that the system can manufacture things whole cloth and tell you to do a stupid and/or dangerous thing. Like tell you to put glue on pizza. No human operator would ever do that, and even if, then that's straight-up a prosecutable crime with a clear person responsible. Per previous analogy, it'd be a human operator that knowingly inputs fraudulent information from a cheque. But then again, there would be a human signature on the transaction and a person responsible.

So not only is a gigantic LLM matrix a terrible heuristic for most tasks - eg "how to solve my customer problem" - it introduces failure modes that are outlandish, essentially impossible with a human (or a specialised ML system) and leave no chain of responsibility. It's a real stinky ball of bull.

 

Turns out software engineering cannot be easily solved with a ~~small shell script~~ large language model.

The author of the article appears to be a genuine ML engineer, although some of his takes aged like fine milk. He seems to be shilling Google a bit too much for my taste. However, the sneer content is good nonetheless.

First off, the "Devin solves a task on Upwork" demo is 1. cherry picked, 2. not even correctly solved.

Second, and this is the absolutely fantastic golden nugget here, to show off its "bug solving capability" it creates its own nonsensical bugs and then reverses them. It's the ideal corporate worker, able to appear busy by creating useless work for itself out of thin air.

It also takes over 6 hours to perform this task, which would be reasonable for an experienced software engineer, but an experienced software engineer's workflow doesn't include burning a small nuclear explosion worth of energy while coding and then not actually solving the task. We don't drink that much coffee.

The next demo is a bait-and-switch again. In this case I think the author of the article fails to sneer quite as much as it's worthy -- the task the AI solves is writing test cases for finding the Least Common Multiple modulo a number. Come on, that task is fucking trivial, all those tests are oneliners! It's famously much easier to verify modulo arithmetic than it is to actually compute it. And it takes the AI an hour to do it!

It is a bit refreshing though that it didn't turn out DEVIN is just Dinesh, Eesha, Vikram, Ishani, and Niranjan working for $2/h from a slum in India.

 

I'm not sure if this fully fits into TechTakes mission statement, but "CEO thinks it's a-okay to abuse certificate trust to sell data to advertisers" is, in my opinion, a great snapshot of what brain worms live inside those people's heads.

In short, Facebook wiretapped Snapchat by sending data through their VPN company, Onavo. Installing it on your machine would add their certificates as trusted. Onavo would then intercept all communication to Snapchat and pretend the connection is TLS-secure by forging a Snapchat certificate and signing it with its own.

"Whenever someone asks a question about Snapchat, the answer is usually that because their traffic is encrypted, we have no analytics about them," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in a 2016 email to Javier Olivan.

"Given how quickly they're growing, it seems important to figure out a new way to get reliable analytics about them," Zuckerberg continued. "Perhaps we need to do panels or write custom software. You should figure out how to do this."

Zuckerberg ordered his engineers to "think outside the box" to break TLS encryption in a way that would allow them to quietly sell data to advertisers.

I'm sure the brave programmers that came up with and implemented this nonsense were very proud of their service. Jesus fucking cinammon crunch Christ.

view more: next ›