Yes, true, but that is assuming:

1. Any potential future improvement solely comes from ingesting more useful data.
2. That the amount of data produced is not ever increasing (even excluding AI slop).
3. No (new) techniques that makes it more efficient in terms of data required to train are published or engineered.
4. No (new) techniques that improve reliability are used, e.g. by specializing it for code auditing specifically.

What the author of the blogpost has shown is that it can find useful issues even now. If you apply this to a codebase, have a human categorize issues by real / fake, and train the thing to make it more likely to generate real issues and less likely to generate false positives, it could still be improved specifically for this application. That does not require nearly as much data as general improvements.

While I agree that improvements are not a given, I wouldn't assume that it could never happen anymore. Despite these companies effectively exhausting all of the text on the internet, currently improvements are still being made left-right-and-center. If the many billions they are spending improve these models such that we have a fancy new tool for ensuring our software is more safe and secure: great! If it ends up being an endless money pit, and nothing ever comes from it, oh well. I'll just wait-and-see which of the two will be the case.

Not quite, though. In the blogpost the pentester notes that it found a similar issue (that he overlooked) that occurred elsewhere, in the logoff handler, which the pentester noted and verified when spitting through a number of the reports it generated. Additionally, the pentester noted that the fix it supplied accounted for (and documented) a issue that it accounted for, that his own suggested fix for the issue was (still) susceptible to. This shows that it could be(come) a new tool that allows us to identify issues that are not found with techniques like fuzzing and can even be overlooked by a pentester actively searching for them, never mind a kernel programmer.

Now, these models generate a ton of false positives, which make the signal-to-noise ratio still much higher than what would be preferred. But the fact that a language model can locate and identify these issues at all, even if sporadically, is already orders of magnitude more than what I would have expected initially. I would have expected it to only hallucinate issues, not finding anything that is remotely like an actual security issue. Much like the spam the curl project is experiencing.

It is unclear to me what you are trying to accomplish, do you want to update the elements for where masked?

Generally, faster moving traffic necessitates more space between vehicles for a safe stopping distance. Often this distance is specified in seconds as to account for this speed. Road capacity is hence barely affected by changes in speed, only your travel time, if you can get on the road, is. [1]

Moreover, in a city with many intersections, the bottleneck is usually the intersections themselves, not the roads. Higher speeds just causes you to get to the next intersection faster, but may not improve the capacity of an intersection, reducing the travel time gains of a higher speed limit. [2]

To the contrary, the potential increase in travel time for cars could make alternatives to driving more attractive, reducing congestion instead. Furthermore, accidents tend to block roads, also causing congestion. Fewer accidents means less congestion.

Polars has essentially replaced Pandas for me. It is MUCH faster (in part due to lazy queries) and uses much less RAM, especially if the query can be streamed. While syntax takes a bit of getting used to at first, it allows me to specify a lot more without having to resort to apply with custom Python functions.

My biggest gripe is that the error messages are significantly less readable due to the high amount of noise: the stacktrace into the query executor does not help with locating my logic error, stringified query does not tell me where in the query things went wrong...

The key point that is being made is that it you are doing de facto copyright infringement of plagiarism by creating a copy, it shouldn't matter whether that copy was made though copy paste, re-compressing the same image, or by using AI model. The product being the copy paste operation, the image editor or the AI model here, not the (copyrighted) image itself. You can still sell computers with copy paste (despite some attempts from large copyright holders with DRM), and you can still sell image editors.

However, unlike copy paste and the image editor, the AI model could memorize and emit training data, without the input data implying the copyrighted work. (exclude the case where the image was provided itself, or a highly detailed description describing the work was provided, as in this case it would clearly be the user that is at fault, and intending for this to happen)

At the same time, it should be noted that exact replication of training data isn't exactly desirable in any case, and online services for image generation could include a image similarity check against training data, and many probably do this already.

Republicans however also: deport people with a legal right to be in the country, including citizens, without due process. Want to destroy all progress made on issues affecting the LGBTQ+ community. Wish to reduce women's rights, some including voting rights. Want to abolish the separation between church and state.

Even if there is a close resemblance between the two parties on Gaza, but there are plenty of other issues where they are still incomparable, and ignoring these differences and calling both parties equally bad does not help.

At least the AI runs locally, as opposed to sending everything to someone else's computer for processing. Local translation in Firefox actually works quite well.

Also, the user experience is also bound to be much better when a manufacturer provides a tested and supported operating system, especially for "non-experts" for whom a terminal is an arcane inscription tablet.

That is only really a good solution for the few that live in the countryside. If sufficiently many people live close enough to one another without a shop, that is a issue that is best solved by improving planning and introducing local shops (reducing the distance all people in the community have to travel).

Add binary compatibility issues to that list: https://jangafx.com/insights/linux-binary-compatibility The moment you need software that is not packaged by your distro you either need to be lucky that whomever compiled it accounted for your setup, or compile it from scratch yourself (if open source and publicly available). Especially with closed source software (like most games) the latter isn't even an option.

Mattermost does have an Github Repository with a choice of three licenses: MIT (if using versions compiled by them), AGPLv3 (if compiled by you) or an Enterprise license. I would count that as open source.

A more general business management application like Odoo could work?

Fair, though I don't think rallies are a good indicator for enthusiasm in the general voting public. If you have access to polls you may be able to judge things somewhat better (even if polls have their own problems). I like to believe that a politician like Bernie is smart enough to have at least given the option a thought, and figured that running would guarantee a DJT win.

With hindsight, it may be easy to say that it would have been worth a try anyway (given who won in the end...).

Even so, even if he won, it would not be easy to be a president without backing in the US. The only reason DJT is not in prison is support from the other branches of the US government.

It is surprising how many people don't realise the spoiler effect inherent in first-past-the-post makes running as an independent an bad idea: you are more likely to split the vote with a candidate who agrees with some of your points, causing both of you to lose, than being able to bring change.

I think this plot from the same source makes it even more clear:

As a past customer of Gandi, they have been bought out and have been significantly increasing their prices (renewal this year would have cost me twice what I paid a couple years back) while reducing the value proposition of their offering (e-mail is no longer included...)

Especially because the borrow checker is the point, the added value, of rust. With it it can ensure compile time memory safety, without it it is just another programming language.

Note that while entering the Schengen area does not require a visa for USA citizens, you do have to get a visa waiver which is subject to limitations. See this document.

You’re failing to acknowledge that “these types of people exist” are largely a product of anti-educational resources like this particular LTT video. I’ve daily driven Ubuntu based oses for about 4 years solid now and never saw a warning like he saw. That is an extreme outlier, but his video presented it as common in the minds of probably a couple million people.

His specific instance was an outlier of what can happen yes, but it happened naturally during the creation of a video. While I can completely understand the annoyance - this was not faked for the video, and was something that happened. Calling it anti-educational is a rather conspiratorial take. Cutting it out would hide an issue that occurred! A rare issue may not be an issue for you when encountered, given your experience with Linux (we are on a linuxmemes community after all!), but can be problematic for the average Joe. Rather than being overly defensive and than waiving the issue because idiocy - improvements to avoid this from happening in the future are key in my view.

As for things being plug and play, Windows isn’t either. I’ve used all versions of that OS except 8 and 11 and I’ve had problems as bad or worse than anything on Linux plenty of times. Updates have trashed my ability to boot on a few occasions. Yet to hear folks like you tell it, windows just works but Linux is only usable if you’re willing to fix major problems all the time. That was probably true 15 years ago but it just flat out isn’t anymore. You’re not doing anyone any favors except Microsoft by continuing to spread the misinformation that windows is nearly flawless but Linux is unapproachable.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth: I haven't even named Windows, let alone called it better! I have had my fair share of problems with Windows, but technical issues have been rather unmemorable. Most recently the text selection cursor would be the wrong color for whatever reason. I've had an update fail once - but it did not mess up the machine, and the built-in system restore got it working again automatically. The biggest problem I have with Windows is with Microsoft: ads, telemetry, and the fact that updates are pushed without consent.

For Ubuntu I have seen my colleague stuck on the login screen after updating graphics drivers trying to get hardware acceleration to work (Nvidia, who else...) - took well over a day to resolve after things went wrong (colleague was considering a reinstall!), had an update of packages on my RPi mess up timezones resulting in database issues (took me a week to find the responsible package, luckily a hotfix had been released. but had to recover my database from a backup.). I've actually seen this prompt when I was trying to reproduce results from a scientific paper that used an older package (ended up having to do that in a container.). The WiFi dongle was just a more minor issue but one that could occur for the average Joe that would have been a major roadblock for most people.

All these examples occurred within the last 6 or so years. I love Linux on my servers & RPi, and would NOT want to use Windows there. But issues do occur, even when doing otherwise ordinary things, and that has ruined my day a few too many times.