Unlurker|Replay|About
Dune II written in HTML5/JS (github.com/oklemenz)
•
Copyright infringement of the game assets right here
•
Is EA(I assume they're the current IP holder of the game) losing sales from this in order for the violation to be noteworthy? I assume there's not a huge untapped customer base for this particular game that were rushing to buy it but stopped because it's also available online for free.
•
The first RTS I played as a kid. I played it again about a year ago, fantastic game.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
OpenAI should build Slack (latent.space)
•
My personal experience with using Slack as just a in-company chat app has been fine. I enjoy using Slack more than Teams or Discord. All their integrations kinda suck though, and its not uncommon for integrations to randomly break with no discernible changes elsewhere.
•
We used to have a local devs slack and any time someone came up with a random slash command one guy would add a new php script to power that command. I assume a lot of it is just an abandoned API that nobody cares about anymore because Microsoft forced Teams into Office so it took over corporate America in waves. I cant remember the last place I worked at that didnt just use Teams.
•
There are already a ton of slack alternatives. Slack connect is the main thing that is blocking a lot of people from moving off slack, otherwise chat is a commodity.
•
Agreed. Every productivity software and their mother has chat.
•
> Microsoft did, and Teams is by all reports a solid success. Not sure if the author has used Teams. But otherwise, I agree we need an actual good, adorable Slack clone. I thought Google might do this after not buying Slack, but I'm not hearing anything about their solution.
•
Teams is shovelware. Force bundled, with questionably reliable messaging, okay video calling (if your organization policies don't break it), and a fairly useless Phone System component that misbehaves often. Great for organizations that believe these forms of communication should be an afterthought that has rough edges and inconsistent reliability. The recent changes to end webhook support, kill Linux desktop support and do yet another rewrite are inane. Don't expect features you use today in Teams to work in 2 years...
•
I guess I'm in the minority but I haven't noticed a significant variance in quality and features on any chat app I've used in the past 20 years. It seems like a thoroughly solved problem. Slack's "killer feature" was that they really streamlined onboarding which is feels neat the first time you do it. Otherwise, chat is chat. The biggest obstacle has always been getting everyone you need to talk to to agree on which platform to use.
•
Yeah, I would be curious if there is anyone out there paying for Teams. Teams wins as Teams is free with your other Office stuff.
•
I use teams at work and it's okay. Not the best, not the worst, but okay piece of software. At least I have both the calendar and the videocall things in one app and see when the call starts, so I don't accidentally ADHD myself into missing it.
•
Its a solid success if you squint just at the adoption numbers they achieved by cross selling it.
•
They almost have, you could wrangle group projects + group chats together pretty easily and you'd be close-ish. The claude cowork experience backed by google drive with the openai group projects and group chat would, imo, be a really awesome way to work!
•
They'll just do what Anthropic does: let it Ralph Wiggum a pile of broken shit, and then say "wewwwww, doing pwogwamming is vewwy hawd, UwU >_<" when it won't build and fails at basic use cases that would be easy to test automatically
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
How often do full-body MRIs find cancer? (usatoday.com)
•
I pay an extra $60 a year to have my ophthalmologist take a digital image of my retina. It comes back as normal every year, but if something does change we can diff the image against the baseline. Maybe I don't want to look for cancer right now but if I spend $1,000 every 5 years to take an image for later use... isn't that useful?
•
Er wait is retinal cancer a thing?
•
Answering the question in the title... > One study in 2020 found that 95% of asymptomatic patients had some type of "abnormal" finding, but just 1.8% of these findings were indeed cancer. So a bit less than 1.8% of the time in this study > Prenuvo's recent Polaris Study followed 1,011 patients for at least one year following a whole-body MRI scan. Of these patients, 41 had biopsies. More than half of the 41 were diagnosed with cancer. That's 2.0% Note that this doesn't mean that 1.7~2.0% of people have cancer without knowing it. It could be more: > A negative scan doesn’t mean you’re disease-free. Some cancers and conditions simply aren’t visible yet or aren’t reliably detected on a one-time full-body MRI." But also perhaps less, in a way: > "You're finding something that never would have caused you any problem in your life, and in cancer, we call that overdiagnosis," Vickers says.
You can't trust the internet anymore (nicole.express)
•
You never could trust the internet. The difference is that now the problem is so widespread that it's finally spurring us into action, and hopefully a good "web of trust" or similar solution will emerge.
•
I thought a lot last night about how we could protect HN, I didn't come up with a good answer except maybe you'll need to have someone with a higher reputation vouch aka invites. My internet community journey has mostly just been irc -> dA -> twitter -> HN. Too frequently these days I feel I might be putting emotional energy into something that isn't human on this site, hard to express how that makes me feel, but it's not pleasant at all. 힝
•
It comes down to Google's failure. Rather than outright defeating the SEO eldridge abomination by adopting a zero-tolerance policy to those tactics, Google made a mutually advantageous bargain with them of - course, leaving out a third party: us. They could do this because they had no competition. Now, the culture of enabling bad actors is, unfortunately, set. Google did all the innovation it needed to and ever is going to. It needed to be broken up a decade ago. We can still do it now. Though I don't know how much it will save, especially if we don't also go after Apple, and Meta, and Microsoft.
•
It would be in Google's ultimate interest to label AI-generated websites and potentially rank them lower in search results. AI needs to be kept up to date with training data. But that same training data is now poisoned with AI hallucination. Labelling AI generated media helps reduce the amount of AI poison in the training set, and keeps the AI more useful. It also simply undermines the quality of search, both for human users and for AI tool use.
•
I was recently running into this while playing the latest Hollow Knight game. Several sloppified sites which obviously were trying to tailor mechanics/items of the original game into the new one. The new release is only ~six months old, so there is just not that much hard content available to reference. My question is -why? Is it really worth the ad revenue to trick a few people looking into a few niche topics? Say you pick the top 5000 trending movies/music/games and generate fake content covering the gamut. What is the payback period?
This is why my friends and I are setting up a mesh network in our town. The open internet has been going downhill for a while, but LLMs are absolutely accelerating it's demise. I was in denial for the last few years but at this point I've accepted that the internet I grew up on as a kid in the late 90s to mid 2000s is dead. I am grateful for having experienced it but the time has come to move on. The future for people that valued what the early internet provided is local, trusted networks in my opinion. It's sad that we need to retreat into exclusionary circles but there are too many people interested in making a buck on the race to the bottom.
•
This will be about as impactful as printing out the best web articles you encounter and building a shed to shelve them in binders.
This seems like solving the problem at the wrong layer? The issue isn’t the actual network connection between people, it is the content. You could easily create your own forum or something and only include people you trust. You don’t need an entirely separate internet.
•
Even if it was a "network connection" issue creating an overlay network on top of the Internet (with VPN tunnels and mesh routing, for example) would yield wildly better bandwidth and latency characteristics. You can still make that overlay network geofenced and vetted. Heck, running it over a local ISP's last mile would probably yield wonderful latency. We need vetted webrings on the existing Internet, not a new Internet.
•
There's only so much you can do to detect and block content that's AI generated. At the end of the day, the content starts with the people creating it. Jumping to an invite only network isn't the most ridiculous idea imo.
•
The best solution for dealing with AI content slop flooding your eyeballs is to hang out in places small enough to be a community -- like a local area mesh network. AI slop thrives in anonymity. In a community that's developed its own established norms and people who know each other, AI content trying to be passed off as genuine stands out like a sore thumb and is easily eradicated before it gets a chance to take root. It doesn't have to be invite-only, per se, but it needs to have its own flavor that newcomers can adapt to, and AI slop doesn't.
•
What parent means is that you can with no problem build over the classic tcp/ip.
•
Perhaps, but it also, by default, excludes that entire class of authentication problems that are only manifested in a non-local network. I love the idea. It's also interesting in that a local mesh doesn't necessarily need to operate using the TCP/IP/HTTP stack that has been compromised at every layer by advertising and privacy intrusions.
•
You’re probably getting downvoted because what you said about TCP/IP/HTTP doesn’t make sense.
I "got online" in 1985. I don't recall a single point in time that a geographically local internet was ever useful or of interest to me.
•
I got a 300 baud modem right around the same time. There were a few local BBSs that ran meetups, scavenger hunts, warez parties and the like. I got to know a bunch of the regulars from the area. Pretty cool time.
•
I think before Friendster, Myspace, then Facebook, there was a period where there were discussion forums for local communities. I think it was useful for meeting people. I remember friends in the late '90s used them frequently for chatting and some made new friends in real life that way. It was a short period, though, as more established companies came along that had a wider reach.
What about when you want to find hot singles in your area? Jokes aside, probably 10-20% of my browsing is related to local things, up to the country scale. From finding local restaurants or businesses, to finding about relevant laws or regulations, news, etc. That's not negligible.
•
Fair point, but those information sources and those things were not connected to a local internet.
I've been looking into building some sort of Wireguard mesh service since many of my friends are distributed all across the world. I wish you the very best in your endeavours!
•
How would that look like in practice? I've just heard about the term and I like the description of it, especially the possibilities it gives
•
That's a great question; it's something I still need to explore, but it would involve some sort of distributed public key database and IP address directory, then a routing table on top of that as people add more resources to the mesh. Wireguard is particularly good at transparent roaming, so it's trivial to use on portable devices or if you need to migrate your server from one provider to another.
A big part of my annoyance is that in the past, something like Phantasy Star Fukkokuban would not really be worth lying about; people need a reason to lie.
•
There was no reason to lie about knowing the Scots language well enough to be the primary contributor by volume to Scots Wikipedia, and yet that's something that happened.
•
> There was no reason to lie about knowing the Scots language well enough to be the primary contributor by volume to Scots Wikipedia Yes, there was: becoming the primary contributor by volume to Scots Wikipedia (which probably doesn't have many contributors to begin with, but there you are). Some people just have to have attention, no matter how.
Tangentially related, I have a hunch, but cannot prove, that prediction markets are the driving force behind a lot of the bad information online, since they essentially monetarily incentivize making people misjudge the state of the world. There's been a huge uptick in this sort of brigade like behavior around current events. First noted it around LK99, that failed room temperature semiconductor in 2023, but it just keeps happening. Used to be we only saw it around elections and crypto pump and dumps, now it's cropping up in the weirdest places.
•
That seems really high effort. I assume most events are things which are hard to influence, so at best you are hoping to tilt the wager odds into your favor. Which could backfire if you are betting on the wrong outcome.
to be boring, the term "enshittification" was invented by one individual, recently, and has a specific meaning. it does not refer to "things just get worse" but describes a specific strategy adopted by corporations using the internet for commercial purposes.
•
> a specific strategy adopted by corporations using the internet for commercial purposes. Isn't that what's driving the pollution of the Internet by LLMs?
•
No. The specific strategy is not about using LLMs or polluting the internet. Enshittification is ... ah screw it, let's turn to wikipedia: > Enshittification, also known as crapification and platform decay, is a process in which two-sided online products and services decline in quality over time. Initially, vendors create high-quality offerings to attract users, then they degrade those offerings to better serve business customers, and finally degrade their services to both users and business customers to maximize short-term profits for shareholders.
•
Words change meaning as they are used. Especially negative words that may start rather specific tend to get used more generally until the specificity is lost.
•
"enshittification" was invented within the last couple of years and its inventor is still alive. I'd normally be the first to agree with and push your point about language evolving, but it's not time to apply that to a neologism this young.
It might be more accurate to say that a lot of low-trust societies have become connected to the Internet which weren't nearly as online a couple of decades ago. For example, a huge fraction of the world's spam originates from Russia, India and Bangladesh. And we know that a lot of the romance scams are perpetrated by Chinese gangs operating out of quasi-lawless parts of Myanmar. Not so much from, say, Switzerland.
•
Russia has been among the top sources of spam since the early 2000s, it's not like anything changed lately. Mail-order bride scams and similar peaked in like 2005. It doesn't take a lot of people to send spam, I don't think it's correlated with the general population's online presence. I'd actually say it's quite the opposite: in 2026, Russia has never been more disconnected from the Western parts of the Internet than it is now (the Russian Internet watchdog blocks like 30% of foreign resources, while Russian IPs are routinely banned on Western sites, I can barely open anything without a VPN). For that reason, and because of limited English proficiency, Russian netizens rarely visit foreign resources these days, except for a few platforms without a good Russian replacement like Instagram and YouTube (both banned btw, only via a VPN), where they usually stay mostly within their Russian-speaking communities. I'm not sure why any of them would be the reason the Internet as a whole has supposedly become low-trust. The OP in question is some SEO company using an LLM to churn out sites with "unique content." We already had this stuff 20 years ago, except the "unique content" was generated by scripts that replaced words with synonyms. Nothing really new here.
Gemini 3 Deep Think drew me a good SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle (simonwillison.net)
•
Interesting thing: I've got my internal request that is similar to this pelican. And there was 0 progress on it in the past ~2 years. Which might have at least a couple of explanations. 1. Spillage into the pre-training: some real artist had drawn a pelican riding a bicycle. 2. Seeing it as an important discourse for model intelligence in the training data might affect allocation of compute into solving this problem, either thru engineers or the model itself finding the texts about this challenge.
I have wondered if with these tests it'll reach a point where online models cheat by generating a line art raster reference then behind the scenes deciding how to vectorize it in the most minimalist way (eg: using strokes and shape elements, etc, rather than naively using path outlines for all forms).
•
Is that cheating, or is that just working smarter not harder?
•
The interesting aspect of the ongoing tests I feel is seeing how models can plan out an image directly using SVG primatives solely through reasoning (code-to-code). If they have a reference then it's a different type of challenge (optimizing for a trace).
For those claiming they rigged it. Do you have any concrete evidence? What if the models have just gotten really good? I just asked Gemini pro to generate an SVG of an octopus dunking a basketball and it did a great job. Not even Deep Think model. Then I did "generate an svg of raccoon at a beach drinking a beer" you can go try this out yourself. Ask it to generate anything you want in SVG. use your imagination. Rant: This is why AI is going to take over, folks are not even trying the least.
•
Every bit of improvement on AI ability will have the corresponding denial phrase. Some people still think AI can't generate the correct number of fingers today.
•
Simon has a private set of SVG tests he uses as well. He said that the private ones were just as impressive.
> a great bicycle It's not. Sorry. Go look at some real bicycles for reference.
•
This is a very reasonable drawing of a bicycle. It has a solid rear triangle, and forward swept front fork, which is an important detail for actually being able to steer the bike. The drivetrain is single speed, but that's fine, and the wheels are radially laced, which is also fine: both of those simplified details are things which occur in real bicycles.
The intensity of competition between models is so intense right now they are definitely benchmaxxing pelican on bike SVGs and Will Smith spaghetti dinner videos.
•
Parallel hypothesis: the intensity of competition between models is so intense that any high-engagement high-relevance web discussion about any LLM/AI generation is gonna hit the self-guided self-reinforced model training and result in de facto benchmaxxing. Which is only to say: if we HN-front-page it, they will come (generate).
US Military preparing for potentially weeks-long Iran operations (reuters.com)
That’s basically what they said in 2003 and look how long America was in Iraq for. Did everyone already forget what happened just two decades ago?
•
Yes, the risk is: Weeks long now = decade long in a decade. The key determining factor could be whether any American boots land on the ground or not. Once they do land, there is then no end to the op. I am assuming a simple Venezuelan-style kidnapping of their leader won't work here, or it would have happened already. Fwiw, Iran of course is substantially larger than both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the risk of a prolonged operation is longer.
•
I’m exponentially surprised every day they don’t attack. That means they’re putting a little thought into this. I wasn’t reading the news in 2003, but they seemed so hurried. Ironically, this time, time would have been of the essence to save the protesters who died. Maybe the US noticed all their potential supporters were rapted and killed.
•
Yeah, the Russians also though they'd occupy Ukraine and change the regime in Kyiv a matter of weeks. Meanwhile the war has been going on for 4 years. The US totally botched Afghanistan, Libya and possibly Syria as well. I gueass another civil war is somehow better than rabid religious leaders who hate the US and Israel armed with nukes.
Descent, Ported to the Web (mrdoob.github.io)
•
Need WebGL2. WebGL1 WASM version based on https://github.com/dxx-rebirth/dxx-rebirth -> https://midzer.de/wasm/descent1/
•
For anyone who enjoyed Descent, please go buy Overload. It's a pretty much perfect spiritual sequel, with a great soundtrack. And I believe made by some of the people that formerly worked on Descent.
•
That is true, furthermore Overload has an usermade campaign called Overload: First Strike, which is a conversion and upgrade of the entire Descent 1 campaign to Overload. Additionally I recommend Desecrators, which is a Descent-like with procedurally generated maps. Think Sublevel Zero or Everspace, except good.
News publishers limit Internet Archive access due to AI scraping concerns (niemanlab.org)
•
The end of traditional news sites is coming. At least for the newspaper websites. Future mcp like systems will generate on the fly newstites in your desired style and content. Journalists will have some kind of paid per view model provided by these gpt like platforms which of course take a too big of a chunk. I can't imagine a WSJ is able to survive.
•
I maintain an open-source project called Linkwarden and this exact discussion is one of the reasons why it exists, teams needed a way to preserve referenced URLs reliably without having to depend on external services. It stores webpages in multiple formats (HTML snapshot, screenshot, PDF snapshot, and a fully dedicated reader view) so you’re not relying on a single fragile archive method. There’s both a hosted cloud plan [1] which directly supports the project, and a fully self-hosted option [2], depending on how much control you need over storage and retention. [1]: https://linkwarden.app [2]: https://github.com/linkwarden/linkwarden
•
I fear that these news publishers would come after RSS next as I see hundreds of AI companies misusing the terms of the news publishers's RSS feed for profit on mass scraping. They do not care and we will be all worse off for it if these AI companies keep continuing to bombard news publishers RSS feeds. It is a shame that the open web as we know it is closing down because of these AI companies.
•
Explain it to me like I’m 5, why is ai scraping the way back machine bad?
We can start by forcing sites to treat crawlers equally. Google's main moat is less physical infrastructure or the algorithms, and more that sites allow only Google to scrape and index them. They can charge money for access or disallow all scrapers, but it should not be allowed to selectively allow only Google.
•
It's not like only allowing Google actually means that only Google is allowed forever. Crawlers are free to make agreements with sites to allow themselves to crawl easier or pretend they are a regular user to bypass whatever block they are trying to do.
Time for a crowd source plugin that relays copies of what individuals view right from the browser. Users control what sites they want to allow it to record so no privacy worries, especially assuming the plugin is open source. No automated crawling. The plugin does not drive the users browser to fetch things. Just whatever a user happens to actually view on their own, some percentage of those views from the activated domains gets submitted up to some archive. Not every view, just like maybe 100 people each submit 1% of views, and maybe it's a random selection or maybe it's weighted by some feedback mechanism where the archive destination can say "Hey if the user views this particular url, I still don't have that one yet so definitely send that one if you see it rather than just applying the normal random chance" Not sure how to protect the archive itself or it's operators.
•
For a historical archive, the issue with this is that it could be difficult to ensure that the data being sent from users' devices wasn't modified in some way, leading to an inaccurate archival copy.
SingleFile does the archiving fairly well. > no privacy worries This is harder than you might expect. Publishing these files is always risky because sites can serve you fingerprinting data, like some hidden HTML tag containing your IP and other identifiers.
•
oof good point
So instead of scraping IA once, the AI companies will use residential proxies and each scrape the site themselves, costing the news sites even more money. The only real loser is the common man who doesn't have the resources to scrape the entire web himself. I've sometimes dreamed of a web where every resource is tied to a hash, which can be rehosted by third parties, making archival transparent. This would also make it trivial to stand up a small website without worrying about it get hug-of-deathed, since others would rehost your content for you. Shame IPFS never went anywhere.
•
AI browsers will be the scrapers, shipping content back to the mothership for processing and storage.
The AI companies won't just scrape IA once, they're keeping come back to the same pages and scraping them over and over. Even if nothing has changed. This is from my experience having a personal website. AI companies keep coming back even if everything is the same.
•
Weird, considering IA has most of its content in a way you could rehost it all idk why nobody’s just hosting a IA carbon copy that AI companies can hit endlessly, and then cutting IA a nice little check in the process, but I guess some of the wealthiest AI startups are very frugal about training data? This also goes back to something I said long ago, AI companies are relearning software engineering poorly. I can think of so many ways to speed up AI crawlers, im surprised someone being paid 5x my salary cannot.
IPFS was an attempt at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System
•
Is there a good post-mortem of IPFS out there?
if that’s the real motive, why don’t they allow access to scrape content after some period? when that news is not as relevant. For example after 6 months.
•
Enabling research is a business model for many publications. Libraries pay money for access to the publishers’ historical archives. They don’t want to cannibalize any more revenue streams; they’re already barely still operating as it is.
Statistically, at least a few of them live in war zones. And I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it.
•
> at least a few of them live in war zones Which is a valuable perspective. But it's not a subsitute for a seasoned war journalist who can draw on global experience. (And relating that perspective to a particular home market.) > I'm sure some of them would fly in to collect data if you paid them for it Sure. That isn't "a news editorial that focuses on free content but in a newspaper-style, e. g. with professional (or good) writers." One part of the population imagines journalists as writers. They're fine on free, ad-supported content. The other part understands that investigation is not only resource intensive, but also requires rare talent and courage. That part generally pays for its news. Between the two, a Wikipedia-style journalistic resource is not entertaining enough for the former and not informative enough for the latter. (Importantly, compiling an encyclopedia is principally the work of research and writing. You can be a fine Wikipedia–or scientific journal or newspaper–editor without leaving your room.)
> Regulatory frameworks like SOC 2 and HIPAA require audit trails and evidence retention Sidebar: Having been part of multiple SOC audits at large financial firms, I can say that nothing brings adults closer to physical altercations in a corporate setting than trying to define which jobs are "critical". - The job that calculates the profit and loss for the firm, definitely critical - The job that cleans up the logs for the job above, is that critical? - The job that monitors the cleaning up of the logs, is that critical too? These are simple examples but it gets complex very quickly and engineering, compliance and legal don't always agree.
•
Thats when you reach out to your insurer and ask them their requirements as per the policy and/or if there are any contractual obligations associated with the requirements which might touch indemnity/SLAs. If it does, then it is critical, if not, then its the classic conversation of cost vs risk mitigate/tolerance.
•
And in the big scheme of things, none of those things are even important, your family, your health and your happiness are :-)
Like it or not, the Internet is today’s store of record for a significant proportion—if not the majority—of the world’s activities. If you don’t want your bad behavior preserved for the historical record, perhaps a better answer is to not engage in bad behavior instead of relying on some sort of historical eraser.
•
Behavior that isn't bad, becomes bad retrospectively after a regime change
I wonder if these publishers would be more amenable to a private archiver that only serves registered academic / journalistic research projects (the way most physical private archives do), with a specific provision to never provide data to companies that would resell it or use it for training of generative models.
•
Yes. Most publishers already do syndication deals. This is a fine idea. The problem with the LLMs is they capture the value chain and give back nothing. It didn’t have to be this way. It still doesn’t.
Presumably someone has already built this and I'm just unaware of it, but I've long thought some sort of crowd sourced archival effort via browser extension should exist. I'm not sure how such an extension would avoid archiving privileged data though.
•
That exists for court documents (RECAP) but I think they didn't have to solve the issue of privilege as PACER publishes unprivileged docs.
Dr. Oz pushes AI avatars as a fix for rural health care (npr.org)
>There's a big question whether people will accept it such empathy as genuine, but my money is on people attaching to these things like crazy Is that something we should cultivate in our society? Being emotionally attached to balls of linear algebra controlled by massive corporations?
•
I honestly don't really know. Notice they can't even actually say "human", they say "provider" above. So they are pretty much admitting, the alternative isn't that you get a life long relationship with a person. You're getting a lifelong attachment to a corporate entity either way. People become sentimentally attached to inanimate objects all the time. It's all about what it means to them. There really isn't a rule book here, we have to figure it out.
The real problem was allowing the AMA to tightly control the supply of doctors for decades---that this would even be a solution to anything. There is very real opportunism and profiteering among those advocating and providing this "solution." But they didn't create the months of waiting that normal folk have to see routine specialists or PCPs. At the very least, they can get instructions on how to do first aid and when to go to the emergency room. I remember talking to friends who were well-meaning but panicked about the ACA being passed because the system would be inundated with people seeking healthcare, and that it would lead to Soviet-style rationing. The rationing hasn't come from any five-year plan or the like, but simply the supply of doctors not keeping up with the demands of a growing population.
•
The meme about AMA artificially limiting the supply of new residency slots turned out to be much more complex the more I read about it (and IMO mostly incorrect, at least as described by the just-so stories on the internet where I first learned about it). The actual limiting factor is federally funded residency positions which are funded by CMMS, and were artificially capped by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 during a widespread climate of financial austerity after Gingrich had led Republicans to retake the House in 1994 for the first time in decades. At the time, AMA apparently did release a report that included support for reducing the number of residency slots, so that detail is correct. But the decision wasn't made by them, and federal healthcare spending was already on the chopping block (and was a politically attractive area to make cuts given the Clinton's administration failed healthcare reform proposal). Starting in 2019 the AMA started regularly releasing policy statements requesting that and other caps on federal funding to be increased, but it wasn't until the CARES ACT in 2020 that Congress funded 1000 new CMMS funded slots were funded (but limited to small gradual increases each year) and started to be implemented in 2021-2022. So while there's a kernel of inarguable truth that the AMA and other medical professional groups did support certain caps back in 1997, it has always been, then and now, a policy decision by Congress. With the motivation to set limits driven by concern over federal healthcare spending inflating budget expenditures. But it makes for a simpler, emotionally resonant narrative of a shadowy self-interested group pulling the strings at the expense of the public (that also conveniently redirects outrage away from the people actually empowered to fix the problem, or that federal spending is a crucial lever to fix the problem). [1] https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/ama-press-releases/ama-fund-graduate-medical-education-address-physician-shortages [2] https://washingtonian.com/2020/04/13/were-short-on-healthcare-workers-why-doesnt-the-u-s-just-make-more-doctors/ [3] https://www.openhealthpolicy.com/p/medical-residency-slots-congress
That's not what I said. There are probably plenty of situations (more standard) where doctors do a good job. The doctors also have the benefit of performing a physical exam, ordering various tests etc. so they have more data. My point still stands though. They definitely mess things up. At the very least LLMs can be an additional tool that doesn't have the subjective bias, the cost issue, or lack of time/desire to investigate deeper or listen to the patient. EDIT: LLMs would be better if they could access case data. Maybe that's something to consider (anonymized).
•
I just upload everything to Lord Grok and the answers I get are amazing. I then run it claude with Ralph and the results define explanation. I am humbled...
>I can say that it is better than the silence I've had for years from no community giving two shits about what I wanted to build It sounds like you were lacking community, then went deeper into isolation.
•
You are not wrong. I blew up a great career that burned me out to go on a journey that was absolutely crushing to emerge with a machine that allows me to have the deepest technical conversations of my entire career. Professionally isolated for sure. But, im married and have friends so its not that bad and dont worry. I just came to many observations about myself and AI has helped process so many emotions that I would never share with another human.
A header-only C vector database library (github.com/abdimoallim)
•
Would it work to replace the memory store with mmap?
In the world of Kubernetes and languages where a one-liner brings in a graph of 1700 dependencies, and oceans of Yaml, it's suddently important for a C thing to be one file rather than two.
•
Exactly; I can't understand this obsession with header-only C "libraries".
•
Writing new C code in 2026 is already an artisanal statement, so why not got all the way in making it?
uBlock filter list to hide all YouTube Shorts (github.com/i5heu)
•
I wrote this little quick and dirty userscript for myself sometime back: // ==UserScript== // @name No Shorts // @match https://www.youtube.com/shorts/* // @match https://www.facebook.com/reel/* // ==/UserScript== window.document.body.innerHTML = '' It has worked pretty well for me so far.
•
Blocktube extension does this with just a checkmark can also hide other things
•
was able to get these added to ublock origin lite, which works in chrome; just paste the content directly into the custom filter settings.
•
Converted to 1Blocker format: https://gist.github.com/egze/7f672ebebecde0546ddb928e7f3adb4a
•
In addition to the unhook addon that others also recommended and is great, I would also suggest, as an alternative, setting a redirection rule from "www.youtube.com/shorts/XYWZ" to "www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYWZ". This will play the short but in the classical youtube video (landscape) format, with no infinite scrolling, or replay or autoplay (assuming these are in general disabled), which takes away a big part of the addictive aspect of shorts.
•
On the main page, shorts, as all the other videos, are served by the recommendation algorithm which should filter out general audience crap you'd see if you're not logged in or have view history disabled. You'd normally see the same stuff you're subscribed to there, plus a few random videos of cats. Maybe a wamen butt occasionally. Might as well hide the main page entirely if you're not that easily entertained. To be quite frank, the main page is such an echo chamber lately that I almost got myself unhooked from procrastinating on YouTube. On the search page, shorts are mostly a mixed bag, but you do occasionally get useful results. So what does this solve? Seems like a form of protest nobody important (those in power) cares about. Another thing is, I have, to my own surprise, discovered a few decent channels that I like, that post their videos in form of shorts exclusively . That's a somewhat new trend and mostly relevant to humor-related or music channels, though. Almost forgot to mention. YouTube recently added the scroll bar to the shorts so they aren't all that different from the other videos now.
•
> Seems like a form of protest Filtering content is not "a form of protest", it is about deciding what content you want to see in your browser and what not. Youtube, even the paid version, does not offer much in terms of customising one's experience (imo the "algorithm" deciding what you should watch based on your history does not count as one) and shorts is a proven addictive pattern that one may not want to encounter online. It is fine if you like watching shorts, such filter lists are for those who do not want to watch shorts.
•
I might be wrong, but I don't think people really care about the addictiveness in the first place. As I see it, the shorts were irritating to see, mainly because they were heavily out of tune with the rest of recommendations. But they seem to have tuned them to be more in line with the rest of the videos. Being not that different from the rest of the videos one gets recommended, there is not much point in hiding them? I'm not exactly protecting shorts here. My point is, you can, of course, cut some of the videos from the feed, but the rest would still be affected by the same algorithm. You still don't get to filter anything, really. So what's the point? If addictiveness really is that much of a factor, I rest my case.
is there a supply chain attack possible? What if some time later this list gets updated?
•
That's the benefit of Brave Browser. The YouTube Shorts blocking feature is built into the browser itself and is not from a third party.
•
I will update it later down the line as YT changes its layout and for bug fixes... but i think this was not what your question. I don't think that something super bad can happen with these uBlock filter, they will sanitize the filter heavily. Maybe a potential attack vector for these lists in general is to hide the body of a few sites but this is more annoying then dangerous AFAIK.
Unhook[1] has been my go-to for this. Gives full customization over shorts, recommendations, comments, etc. 1a: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-recommended-videos/ 1b: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/unhook-remove-youtube-rec/khncfooichmfjbepaaaebmommgaepoid
•
Some of the Unhook options are broken nowadays I think. Its that or one of my other 10 YouTube extensions I now have to deshittify that damn page. Disable translate, SponsorBlock, Disable AutoPlay, some better thumbnail thing..
Audiophiles can't distinguish audio sent through copper, banana or mud (tomshardware.com)
•
it's definitely pointless over the age of 40. mostly pointless prior to that too. a 20 year old listening with young ears is hearing vastly better audio
A difference that long cables make can be heard in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SorO-QpqYRU . Therein, audio from a microphone is sent through progressively-longer cables until the length reaches ~6 miles. It gets pretty muffled-sounding... eventually. (The longest pair of wires I've sent analog audio through was in the realm of 37 miles, stretching across the countryside. AMA, I guess.)
•
Ok I’ll bite… 37 miles?!? Why??
Unfortunately, (1) is not always true. I have in ears surpass some speakers, over the ears which surpass some IEMs, etc. For (2), again it depends. Some companies build amazing things for cheap, some companies build crapshoot for tons of money. The trick is to find the sound you like for the cheapest price. For (3), the simplest chain is the best(est) chain. I used to have a high-end 2x10 band eq which sat between pre and power stages. I removed it, and I'm happier. Unless I'm listening vinyl, I bypass loudness and tone circuits even. There's a funny thing in audio. When you increase the resolution too much, the problems in old/remastered sources become apparent, and you can't enjoy that material anymore. A good Hi-Fi system is meant to create enjoyment, not motivation to spend more money on more equipment or sources. Lastly, for casual listening, even the basic airpods provide plenty of resolution and detail.
•
> even the basic airpods provide plenty of resolution and detail My information might be outdated, but aren’t those the kind that sort of sit loosely at the outside of your ear canal (like the original iPod headphones)? If so, those are the one kind of headphones that I find basically worthless. I’m not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but in the iPod era I could never understand how people tolerated those when you can get vastly better sound for a few bucks. I figured the distinctive apple-brand headphones were kind of a status symbol. AirPod pro sounds fine, though.
•
I personally dislike wearing isolated earphones for longer periods of time since they short-circuit the ear canal and I hear every bone in my jaw area and neck after some point. 3rd generation Airpods, while don't isolate, sound pretty epic for what they are. When sitting at home, I can listen to some music and genuinely enjoy it, and I like their non-isolating nature because it helps me to hear traffic around while walking with them. The only problem is, talking on the phone with them might get a little noisy for the other party, but I believe phone hardware filters some of it. When compared to their rivals, they really have higher resolution, and enjoyable sound balance. Also, iPhone scans your ears with FaceID camera to profile them, so they are also tuned for your ears from get go. This makes positional audio really shine, too. The original iPod buds were pretty flat and tinny. I used to use a pair Sennheisers (I don't remember the model but they were pretty high end) to be able to enjoy what iPods had to offer, back in the day.
•
> When you increase the resolution too much, the problems in old/remastered sources become apparent, and you can't enjoy that material anymore. It doesn’t need to even be that old. I’ve got stuff from small musicians and they don’t have the equipment to make perfect recordings. You can’t tell with good headphones, but you put it through an amazing pair of speakers and it gets fuzzy.
> it's that speakers don't require any tuning to match a person's specific physiology But they do interact with the environment. Having walls which reflect the sound can mess with the sound. Changing speakers won't help. Changing headphones can help.
•
> they do interact with the environment. Yup. Got plaster walls, vinyl flooring, narrow room, different sizes of rattling single-pane windows… Neighbors with leaf blowers… I really like my noise canceling headphones. :)
#2 - Can be. Or it might actually make a difference. We had 2 "living room" setups for a while, upstairs and down. We eventually realized how dumb that was, and condensed to 1. Doing that, we stopped using some really expensive speakers and started using some that were 1/5 the price because we couldn't tell the difference. Then, one day, I brought those expensive speakers down and set them up. Wow. There was a definite difference after all. I'm not an audiophile and can't tell you what that difference was, just that both of us could immediately tell the expensive speakers were better, and we were not going back to the cheaper ones. Nothing else in the setup changed. Also, I eventually upgraded the receiver to something that could better drive those speakers. An upgrade from $600 to about $900. And there was a definite difference there, too. The older box should have been enough, but it just wasn't. Do I recommend that someone on a budget spend $4000 instead of $1500? Nope. It's not enough difference. But for stuff we already had, or for someone that really cares, it's definitely better.
•
You can't make a bad speaker good, but also: people spend lots on gear, but forget the room. The room can break a good speaker easily. Also... 'good' is something you first need to agree on when talking with people. Some people like to have 'distorted' playback (compared to the original), because they "like" that better. That is the moment retailers can sell objectively worse but overpriced stuff. Genelecs for instance are very detailed, neutral etc (there is a reason you see them everywhere in professional settings), but consumers don't necessarily have an appetite for 'objectivity'.
Where do you live? In the US, there a lot of widely available brands of UL-listed (or equivalent) wire with clearly marked specs and the cross section in ridiculous units of AWG. If it says it’s copper and it’s not an outrageous counterfeit, it’s copper. (And it will have a resistance that is in spec, because this is important for code-compliant electrical installations, and it won’t corrode when terminated properly.) And the UL-listed stuff is fantastic, because UL cares about the insulation and jacket. There is plenty of “speaker” wire with crappy insulation that degrades after a few years, but I’ve never seen an actual CL2 or CM or CL3 (or their R or P variants) or THWN(2), TC(-ER) etc, cable, from the last 30 years, with any such issues. 16AWG CL2 cable is fantastic speaker wire, and it’s cheap and you can buy it at any store that sells electrical supplies. TC-ER is great if you need something bigger than 16AWG (the longer the run, the thicker the cable you need to keep resistance below 1 ohm or so), but it’s a bit harder to find. The thing that can be genuinely hard to find is nice twisted-pair or shielded twisted-pair cable in any format other than category (Ethernet) cable, and that tends to max out at 22-23AWG and may have the wrong number of conductors for whatever you’re doing with it. For making up an RCA cable, this is completely unnecessary — use RG59 or RG6 cable if you need particularly good shielding. But for long runs of balanced audio cable, you want actual twisted pairs, 23 AWG is plenty, but you may need those pairs shielded from each other to minimize crosstalk. So you end up with commercial snake cables, and those are not cheap. Some people use digital stage boxes these days, because an effectively transparent ADC and all the electronics needed to make it work can be cheaper than the fancy cables.
•
> Where do you live? Somewhere far w.r.t. US. :) > 16AWG CL2 cable is fantastic speaker wire, Yet, it's way thinner than the manufacturer of my speakers recommend, which start at 13, and only go up. In my case I need 12 or 11. I don't remember honestly. The good thing is, I managed to get a roll of the correct cable made by Acoustic Research. While the cable is not "fancy", it's copper, has the correct thickness and it's jacket still feels like day 1, and that thing is 10+ years old at this point. For RCA cables I still use the factory default set came with my amplifier. Japan made, with very flexible jackets and gold plated connectors. That provides more than enough clarity for me.
My speaker's manual says the following: > Please always use a good quality loudspeaker connection cable from an audio dealer. To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m. Interestingly, the table present in the printed manual is not present in the one on the internet. IIRC, recommendation for 100W up to 3m was 3mm² or 4mm² at minimum. From what I looked at, 14AWG is ~2mm² and 16AWG is 1.3mm². Way too skinny for what the manufacturer says. Unless you're running speaker cables parallel to some power cables, shielding is not a requirement from my experience. The cable I use is at [0]. I have a roll like this. Mine is thicker than 2.5mm² though. [0]: https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71Jr0vhSTsL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
•
> To prevent impairment of sound quality, we recommend cables with cross-sections of at least 2.5 mm² for lengths up to 3 m and at least 4 mm² for lengths above 3 m. This is just a unit issue. See: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-gauges-d_419.html Those numbers are also ridiculous. They’re recommending 13AWG or higher for a 3m run. That’s about 20 feet round trip, which is about 0.04 ohms. The speaker should be 8 ohms nominal, but let’s call it 1 ohm at some very audible frequency to be conservative. So you might lose 2% of your power or maybe 0.1dB. Keep in mind that you cannot hear frequency-independent attention at all (the volume knob fixes it), so you’ll only hear the frequency-dependent part, which will be smaller, and your speaker plus room already has frequency dependence far in excess of 0.1dB. Note that the speaker power doesn’t even factor in to the calculation — as you supply more power, you’re increasing the current and voltage accordingly, and the effects cancel out. At very high power you may care about heating. That recommended cable has an NEC ampacity of 15A or more, and 15A^2 * 8ohms = 1800W. Derate a bit because you’re at higher frequencies than 60Hz and you are just fine — in fact, the voltage will become a safety problem at silly power long before the resistive heating matters. I will admit that there is a good reason to use at least 18AWG cable or so: speaker cable terminations are utter crap, and the crappiness seems to get worse as the fanciness goes up. A thicker wire is more likely to survive being terminated, within limits. Buy some 16AWG two-conductor CL2 or CL2R or CL2P cable at your home improvement store and be done with it. > Unless you're running speaker cables parallel to some power cables, shielding is not a requirement from my experience. I have never heard mains hum coupled from a passive speaker cable. That’s not really a thing — there just isn’t enough power to make it audible under normal conditions.
The experiment compared .wav files directly ripped from the cd to these same files played through copper/banana/mud. So yes, the “good” audio is good.
•
less about the files, more about the audio equipment in between
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
IBM tripling entry-level jobs after finding the limits of AI adoption (fortune.com)
[dupe] Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46995146
•
Thanks - we-ve merged that thread hither.
Is this for their in-house development or for their consulting services? Because the latter would still be indicative of AI hurting entry level hiring since it may signal that other firms are not really willing to hire a full time entry level employee whose job may be obsoleted by AI, and paying for a consultant from IBM may be a lower risk alternative in case AI doesn't pan out.
•
And if it is for consulting, I doubt very serious they will based in the US. You can’t be priced competitive hiring an entry level consultant in the US and no company is willing to pay the bill rate for US based entry level consultants unless their email address is @amazon.com or @google.com. Source: current (full time) staff consultant at a third party cloud consulting firm and former consultant (full time) at Amazon.
•
Why would Amazon bring on a full-time consultant instead of just hiring you?
A Review of M Disc Archival Capability. With long term testing results (microscopy-uk.org.uk)
For this purpose, I think it would be nice to access the raw data, to see any errors that would be otherwise masked. As someone in the comments suggested, one might compare number of corrected errors in 1, 2, 5 years and compare to the number of redundant bits stored to estimate the expected longevity of the medium
•
dvdisaster might already be able to do this analysis.
LTO tape exists and should last 30 to 50 years in good storage conditions.
•
I have a normal PC... I'd love some kind of external tape drive that I can connect with USB-C, or USB-3... But everything is SAS? And no way to convert SAS to SATA? Recommendations?
Which is disgrace when you consider that no optical drive is yet available that will not read original red book cd roms from the 80s. You say "it can read from one generation ago" as if it was some great thing about LTO when it is just a laughably fast obsolescence policy and what really kills it for a home user. A blueray drive manufactured today can still fscking write to a 90s CD-R from way before LTO even existed.
•
That is easy for optical drives, because there is no direct relationship between the size of bits on the optical track and the dimensions of the read/write laser head. For magnetic media, the gaps in the magnetic circuit of the read/write heads are optimized for a certain dimension of the bits from the tape material and the efficiency of the read/write process greatly diminishes for other bit sizes. So there is no obsolescence policy, but there is a real technical difficulty in ensuring compatibility with older magnetic media with different bit densities.
The tapes are guaranteed for 30 years. Most optical discs do not have any guarantees about lifetime and the worst of them may survive only a few years. There have existed special quality optical discs with gold mirrors that were guaranteed for 100 years, but those are no longer produced and a single modern tape cartridge stores as much data as thousands of those discs. There are several mechanisms of degradation of optical discs. If the plastic does not seal well enough the metallic mirror, the metal can become oxidized and transparent, so it no longer reflects enough of the laser light. This is why certain archival discs used gold mirrors, which cannot oxidize. The plastic resin may also degrade in various ways and cause disc deformation.
•
Any guarantee made by manufacturer about data on tape longevity is irrelevant unless it is easy for user to create the storage conditions under which is warranted, and that is usually not cheap. not hard to find stories about data on LTO tapes being unreadable after 5 years. The same as stories of data on even the worst CD-Rs being still readable after 30 years ( i can personaly attest to that).
You put exactly why I said do not mention LTO - You suggest buying multidecade old drives that are no longer manufactured, have weird interfaces that your 2026 PC no longer has, are expensive, large, noisy - You then mention LTO7 which will not read your LTO4 tapes and is not just expensive but literally out of reach economically for single home Basically LTO is a terrible backup strategy unless you have a lot of money regularly that you will spend in order to upgrade your entire equipment every two/three generations (otherwise your newer equipment wont read your old tapes). Or you have so much data to backup that cost of drives is not really an issue.
•
I bought a thunderbolt to FC adapter; works perfectly on Mac and Linux. I mention LTO 4 because you can today, buy multi decades old LTO-4. Brand new. So in multiple decades from now, I assume you’ll be able to find LTO-7 or 8; brand new. A drive might cost a little more to obtain, but given the plethora of used multi decades old lto currently out there, it seems reasonable to expect that in a recovery scenario you’ll be able to shell out for the right drive. But yes for most HDDs or the cloud are better. No need to get spicy about it.
•
Using HDDs for backup is also a terrible long term strategy, because you must have a lot of money regularly, to buy new HDDs to replace your old HDDs and this much more often than you need to buy a tape drive to migrate your tapes. I have stored a lot of data on HDDs, and the only reason why I have not lost any of it yet is because I have always used duplicate HDDs. After 5 years or more, most HDDs had some corrupted sectors, but they were not in the same positions in the duplicate HDDs, allowing complete recovery of the data. The reality is that both tapes and HDDs such. What is really needed for long-term storage is a write-once memory with a lifetime of 100 years or more, based on an open standard that would ensure the availability of readers in the future.
No, they are not. Specially when you have to find the one drive that will read your tapes , connect to your computer, and many other constraints that a user will have.
•
The connection to a computer does not have any special challenges, except that the computer must be a desktop with a free PCIe slot. Unless you have a server motherboard with an on-board SAS controller, you need to buy a SAS HBA card, put it in your desktop and also buy a compatible SAS cable, in order to connect an LTO tape drive to the computer. New tape drives are extremely expensive, e.g. $4500 for the last generation of LTO-9 tapes (18 TB/cartridge), but if you store at least a few hundred TB of data you recover the cost of the drive from the cost difference between HDDs and tape cartridges. I have an older LTO-7 (6 TB/cartridge) tabletop drive, which has cost me $3000 about 7 or 8 years ago (new), and there are several years since I have recovered its cost. If you do not intend to store more than 100 TB, the cheapest solution is to buy external HDDs, but for long term storage you must plan to migrate the data periodically, as the lifetime of HDDs is hard to predict and unlikely to be much greater than 5 years.
Platforms bend over backward to help DHS censor ICE critics, advocates say (arstechnica.com)
So what? Remember the Biden years?
•
Fondly
I'm commenting on an article about an American advocacy group filing a lawsuit accusing high-ranking government officials of misconduct, another thing that similarly situated people in China cannot do. Again, happy to admit the possibility I could be wrong: are there cases I don't know about where Chinese citizens file lawsuits accusing the Ministry of State Security of misconduct? The content of the lawsuit argues, correctly in my view, that American speech protections are so strong they go beyond mere criticism. American citizens have a right to publish detailed information about the location of government agents, even if this information makes law enforcement harder and even if the agents fear being tracked might be dangerous for them.
•
Thank you. Your reply is more respectful than I earned. On paper americans have all these rights, but surely you are seeing how the paper is not matching the reality in many ways, and very little is being done to fix that as tens of millions of americans outright support the paper being ignored, so how can you trust that disparity to not come for your paper rights to speak? Already those same courts you are relying on have thrown away real rights, and the administration itself flouts those same courts regularly. Chinese citizens have a lot of rights on paper too, including right to freedom of expression. I would bet you could find occasional cases or situations in China where some lowly citizen "wins" against the government, as that always looks good, but that doesn't make it meaningful and I can't read or speak any Chinese languages to back up this suspicion. It's only going to take one Supreme Court case to change the paper rights. Do you feel this supreme court has shown a preference for principles over administration?
See my edited comment, with a link to the NY Times's frame-by-frame, time-synced compilation of various video angles. She didn't run over him or even hit him.
•
They don't care Nazi sympathizers don't care about facts
•
[delayed]
Vim 9.2 (vim.org)
The OP covers this question at the bottom; donations still go to the same people in Uganda, iiuc.
•
Oh right... doi. Thanks.
Big companies can be incredibly penny wise and pound foolish because their beancounters make them obsess over the wrong metrics. My current company has spent the last year cost cutting every single way to stay afloat and now you need a chain of approvals up the management ladder with detailed explanation for every paperclip you want purchase. I can't prove it, but I am willing to bet my entire salary that the costs of all the new extra bureaucratic overhead introduced for small purchases, nullified or even exceeded all their savings, when the remaining engineers and managers paid six figures have to spend more of their time writing, reviewing and approving paperclip orders instead of you know, running the company, fulfilling customer demands and innovating. I'm pretty new to this, but I have a feeling these are all the signs of a company it's worth jumping ship from ASAP as there's no chance of things improving from this. Sure, AMD managed to turn the ship around with cost cutting, but our CEO is not Lisa Su, he's a boomer who cuts where clueless $BIG_4 consultants tell him to cut, and big_4 doesn't care about innovation or the company being relevant in 10 years, they care about showing some immediate results/positive cash to justify their outrageous rates.
•
And they're probably feeling the need to pinch because they are moving slow and falling out of relevance. When you're being outcompeted and outmaneuvered it's important to slow down and make sure you save a few dollars wherever possible, apparently.
The announcement itself looks potentially AI-assisted, judging by the bulleted list style and redundant text under the "Charity: Transition to Kuwasha" section. But maybe some people just write that way.
•
Wait a couple of more months, and no-none will know to write any other way.
Do you know why it was rejected?
•
It’s been too long, I no longer recall specifics. Wikipedia links to the patch’s discussion on Google Groups, if you care to read it. https://groups.google.com/g/vim_dev/c/65jjGqS1_VQ/m/fFiFrrIBwNAJ Vim 8 did add support for asynchronous jobs, due to the pressure of Neovim fork. https://lwn.net/Articles/713114/
•
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7279358
Lua, especially with LuaJIT, is nearly as fast as C. I certainly don't want to have to run a slow language like Ruby or especially a full blown JS runtime like V8 just to run Vim, the entire point is speed and keyboard ergonomics, otherwise just use VSCode.
•
V8 is faster than LuaJIT. But sure, it has a large binary size.
My smart sleep mask broadcasts users' brainwaves to an open MQTT broker (aimilios.bearblog.dev)
•
The narrator in the article acts as a third person observer and identifies "Claude" as the active hacker. So assuming the (unidentified) company that sells/manages the product wants to prosecute a CFAA violation, who do they go after? Was Claude the one responsible for all of the hacking?
Ok, obviously unethical to do it, but this sounds like you've got the power to create some sci-fi shared dreaming device, where you can read people's brainwaves and send signals to other people's masks based on those signals. Or send signals to everyone at the same time and suddenly people all across the world experience some change in their dream simultaneously. Like, don't actually do it, but I feel like there's inspiration for a sci-fi novel or short story there.
•
Dreamscape, 1984
•
That’s the plot of Paprika.
The discourse around LLMs has created this notion that humans are not lazy and write perfect code. They get compared to an ideal programmer instead of real devs.
•
Amen. On top of that, especially now, with good prompting you can get closer to that better than you think.
How many registers does an x86-64 CPU have? (2020) (blog.yossarian.net)
Nitpick (footnote 3): "64-bit kernels can run 32-bit userspace processes, but 64-bit and 32-bit code can’t be mixed in the same process. ↩" That isn't true on any operating system I'm aware of. If both modes are supported at all, there will be a ring 3 code selector defined in the GDT for each, and I don't think there would be any security benefit to hiding the "inactive" one. A program could even use the LAR instruction to search for them. At least on Linux, the kernel is perfectly fine with being called from either mode. FASM example code (with hardcoded selector, works on my machine): format elf executable at $1_0000 entry start segment readable executable start: mov eax,4 ;32-bit syscall# for write mov ebx,1 ;handle mov ecx,Msg1 ;pointer mov edx,Msg1.len ;length int $80 call $33:demo64 mov eax,4 mov ebx,1 mov ecx,Msg3 mov edx,Msg3.len int $80 mov eax,1 ;exit xor ebx,ebx ;status int $80 use64 demo64: mov eax,1 ;64-bit syscall# for write mov edi,1 ;handle lea rsi,[Msg2] ;pointer mov edx,Msg2.len ;length syscall retfd ;return to caller in 32 bit mode Msg1 db "Hello from 32-bit mode",10 .len=$-Msg1 Msg2 db "Now in 64-bit mode",10 .len=$-Msg2 Msg3 db "Back to 32 bits",10 .len=$-Msg3
•
Much like there is 64-bit "code", there is also 32-bit "code" that can only be executed in the 32-bit (protected) mode, namely all the BCD, segment-related, push/pop-all instructions that will trigger an invalid opcode exception (#UD) when executed under long mode. In that strictest sense, "64-bit and 32-bit code can’t be mixed".
•
Isn't it how recent Wine runs 32-bit programs?
•
This is also true on Windows. Malware loves it! https://encyclopedia.kaspersky.com/glossary/heavens-gate/
The low 8 bits of SI, DI, BP and SP weren't accessible before, but now they are in 64-bit mode. The earliest ancestor of x86 was the CPU of the Datapoint 2200 terminal, implemented originally as a board of TTL logic chips and then by Intel in a single chip (the 8008). On that architecture, there was only a single addressing mode for memory: it used two 8-bit registers "H" and "L" to provide the high and low byte of the address to be accessed. Next came the 8080, which provided some more convenient memory access instructions, but the HL register pair was still important for all the old instructions that took up most of the opcode space. And the 8086 was designed to be somewhat compatible with the 8080, allowing automatic translation of 8080 assembly code. 16-bit x86 didn't yet allow all GPRs to be used for addressing, only BX or BP as "base", and SI/DI as "index" (no scaling either). BP, SI and DI were 16-bit registers with no equivalent on the 8080, but BX took the place of the HL register pair, that's why it can be accessed as high and low byte. Also the low 8 bits of the x86 flag register (Sign,Zero,always 0,AuxCarry,always 0,Parity,always 1,Carry) are exactly identical to those of the 8080 - that's why those reserved bits are there, and why the LAHF and SAHF instructions exist. The 8080 "PUSH PSW" (Z80 "PUSH AF") instruction pushed the A register and flags to the stack, so LAHF + PUSH AX emulates that (although the byte order is swapped, with flags in the high byte whereas it's the low byte on the 8080).
•
Fun fact, that obviously you already know but may be interesting to others. In the encoding the registers are ordered AX, CX, DX, BX to match the order of the 8080 registers AF, BC (which the Z80 uses as count register for the DJNZ instruction, similar to x86 LOOP), DE and HL (which like BX could be used to address memory).
Conservatively though, another answer could be when not considering subset registers as distinct: 16 GP 2 state (flags + IP) 6 seg 4 TRs 11 control 32 ZMM0-31 (repurposes 8 FPU GP regs) 1 MXCSR 6 FPU state 28 important MSRs 7 bounds 6 debug 8 masks 8 CET 10 FRED ========= 145 total And don't forget another 10-20 for the local APIC. "The answer" depends upon the purpose and a specific set of optional extensions. Function call, task switching between processes in an OS, and emulation virtual machine process state have different requirements and expectations. YMMV. Here's a good list for reference: https://sandpile.org/x86/initial.htm
•
ZMM registers are separate from the 8 FPU registers. That's because the ZMM set is separate from MM registers. So there's 8 more. In hardware, however, renaming resources are shared between ST/MM registers and the eight Kn mask registers.
The same way AMD added 8 new GPRs, I imagine: by introducing a new instruction prefix.
•
Yes, two in fact. One is the same prefix (with subtle differences of course, it's x86) that was introduced for AVX512's 32 registers. The other is new and it's a two byte extension (0xd6 0x??) of the REX prefix (0x40-0x4f). The longer prefix has extra functionality such as adding a third operand (i.e. add r8, r15, r16), blocking flags update, and accessing a few new instructions (push2, pop2, ccmp, ctest, cfcmov).
 Top