jdiff

9 ms·

31.
by jdiff 16d ago
Of course it's a made up problem, most ultimately are. Programming (and life) are full of bike sheds for those with eyes to see them, does that mean they should not be painted?
32.
by jdiff 17d ago
Obviously no, not only Brits, but the Brits are the ones under discussion because they're the ones being actively threatened with ChatControl laws. Speech is regulated widely in many ways. There is no country with absolute freedom of s
33.
by jdiff 20d ago
This kind of thought-terminating dogmatism is unwise.
34.
by jdiff 22d ago
But there are still very many automated accounts. Publicly automated, secretly automated, blatantly automated, not-hidden-but-not-advertised-to-be automated. What caused you to have to shut down when so few others, legitimate, illegitimate,
35.
by jdiff 22d ago
But Twitter has and embraces that. The bots are all verified. Go on any tweet that mentions crypto or "my friends account got hacked" and dive into the deep well of hidden tweets. Hiding tweets for users without accounts does abso
36.
by jdiff 22d ago
Careful, let's not put the whole matrix into stasis outside of business hours. Productivity is not the only reason to let these meatbags burn oxygen.
37.
by jdiff 23d ago
The NFT is the metadata. The metadata is the token that cannot be funged. The image is a wholly separate thing that a token points at, and multiple tokens can point at the same thing just fine. NFTs be be funge-free but images are fully fun
38.
by jdiff 23d ago
> ~3x the energy of running an LED light for 5 minutes. Why would this not be the energy of running an LED light for 15 minutes?
39.
by jdiff 23d ago
I don't think they are selling well, either. I was wondering at your source since it would be very atypical for any company to give any numbers at all, let alone a company that's so outwardly sketchy, let alone numbers like "
40.
by jdiff 23d ago
"Looking now"? Is this something they publicize for some unknowable reason?
41.
by jdiff 24d ago
Anything that goes into the context window has that going for it. That's a huge part of why Claude's gone absolutely bonkers with genuine, brutal honesty. The system prompt's absolutely stuffed full of those keywords, so now
42.
by jdiff 24d ago
I don't think the word "amplification" is accurate. I don't know why, but while engineering techbro circles love "multipliers," but those very very rarely exist in real life. You do need a baseline of knowledge
43.
by jdiff 25d ago
The article mentions this, but this was before CPUs had lids. When delidding a CPU, you have to be very careful not to crack the silicon die that you are applying force directly to. In the case of this Athlon, even care wasn't enough.
44.
by jdiff 25d ago
You'd need unlimited money and hyperadvanced future technology. There's just no way to get things lined up and no way to reconnect any of it and no way to reclaim or reattach any of the tiny bits of silicon that preferred to becom
45.
by jdiff 26d ago
You may not be interested in arguing but there are several blatant issues with the statement. If you're not charging the humans driving the software, who are you charging? The weights? The weights + the specific context window that pro
46.
by jdiff 26d ago
I agree fully that it makes logistical sense. But it is not a legal requirement, and they should not be permitted to use that as an excuse to wash their hands of their own decisions.
47.
by jdiff 26d ago
The ruling was that what they did was within the law, not required by law in every detail. They cannot resell the copies. I saw nothing in that ruling that required their destruction, because it is not required. A person can digitize their
48.
by jdiff 26d ago
Selling it is not allowed. The inability to sell it does not require its destruction.
49.
by jdiff 26d ago
Nowhere in this description did it require destruction of the physical book. This is being done because it's easier to scan a shucked book, and this explanation is circulating because it's easier to blame it on the law and that pe
50.
by jdiff 29d ago
Theoretically jobs reward loyalty and wish to maintain institutional knowledge. For some reason right now everyone thinks they can get away without those. And I can't say they're precisely wrong. But as someone working on dumpster
51.
by jdiff 1mo ago
Or "fukashima", which I think also rules out an AI editing pass at the end. That said, the smell of Claude specifically is pervasive in that comment. Perhaps someone who's ingested a bit too much Anthropic output?
52.
by jdiff 1mo ago
The ads themselves have been known to do that on many an occasion.
53.
by jdiff 1mo ago
What are you basing this on?
54.
by jdiff 1mo ago
This appears to be an individual rather than a company.
55.
by jdiff 1mo ago
I think we can look upon the collective works of the corporations of the world and agree that the employees do not do that, nor are they expected to.
56.
by jdiff 1mo ago
That's not a take I was expecting to find here. I've found most LLMs absolutely dreadful when it comes to Gleam, to the point that I most often disable even inline autocomplete when working in Gleam codebases. Too often I find the
57.
by jdiff 1mo ago
How many phones have you tested this with?
58.
by jdiff 1mo ago
Not trying to argue you out of your preference, but trying to understand it: Why would you want to be able to accidentally hide parts of the page by having a sidebar open, or extended too far? I don't understand why the page should pre
59.
by jdiff 1mo ago
According to a new uncle to your comment, not whois or RDAP.
60.
by jdiff 1mo ago
It's a grammatical error, sure, where is the indication of slop?

More ›