Can you say more? Guile's the only scheme I've tried (attempts at packaging for Guix). Debugging has been difficult, but I figured it was me struggling with new tools and API. Does racket have better facilities for introspection or discovery at the REPL?
> passing laws that only apply to people who volunteer to follow them
That's a concerning lens to view regulations. Obviously true, but for all laws. Regulations don't apply to only to what would be immediately observable offenses.
There are lots of bad actors and instances where the law is ignored because getting caught isn't likely. Those are conspiracies! They get harder to maintain with more people involved and the reason for whistle-blower protections.
VW's Dieselgate[1] comes to mind albeit via measurable discrepancy. Maybe Enron or WorldCom (via Cynthia Cooper) [2] is a better example.
But most regulations are, and can be, enforced because the perpetrator can simply be caught. That’s the difference. This is not enforceable in any meaningful way. The only way it could change anything would be through whistleblowers, for example someone inside a major outlet like the New York Times reporting to authorities that AI was being used. On the contrary, if you systematically create laws that are, by their nature, impossible to enforce, you weaken trust in the law itself by turning it into something that exists more on paper than in reality.
* I suspect many existing and reasonable regulations do not meet that "simply caught" classification. @rconti's comment above[1] gives some examples of regulations on process that are not observed in the output (food, child labor). I'll add accounting, information control (HIPAA, CUI, etc), environmental protections.
* Newsroom staff is incentivized to enforce the regulation. It protects their livelihood. From the article:
> Notably, the bill would cement some labor protections for newsroom workers
* Mandatory AI labeling is not impossible to enforce. At worst, it requires random audits (who was paid to write this story, do they attest to doing so). At best, it encourages preemptive provenance tracking (that could even be accessible to the news consumer! I'd like that).
One reason for the regulation is we fear hallucinations slipping into the public record -- even if most LLM usage is useful/harmless. Legal restrictions ideally prevent this, but also give a mechanism for recourse when it does happen.
Say a news story goes off the rails and reports a police officer turned into a frog [2] or makes up some law[3]. Someone thinks that's odd and alerts whatever authority. The publisher can be investigated, reprimanded, and ideally motivated to provide better labeling or QC on their LLM usage.
That looks demonstrative! For those that don't want to click, from Aug to Feb S&P is up 10%. "Software - Applications" is down 21%.
But in this context, is Uber[9% weight, down ~4% YTD] a transportation company that roles it's own software for competitive advantage? I think other's in the composition are similar. The takeaway is maybe that the tech landscape is changing or LLMs have spooked investors and they're running without direction. But that doesn't necessarily speak to bespoke software uptake (already) cutting into profits(?) Uber would be fine in that case?
Hopefully not too offtopic: why so much boilerplate?
I see most would-be-boilerplate code refactored so the redundant bit becomes a small utility or library. But most of what I write is for research/analysis pipelines, so I'm likely missing an important insight. Like more verbose configuration over terse convention?
For code structure, snippets tempting[1] ("iff[tab]" => "if(...){...}") handles the bare conditional/loop completes in a more predictable way and offline/without a LLM eating into RAM.
Abstracting away redundancy could make it harder to understand exactly what the code is doing, and could introduce tech debt when you need slightly different behavior from some code that is abstracted away. Also, if the boilerplate code is configuration, its good to see exactly what the configuration is when trying to grok how some code works.
You bring up a good point with snippets though, and I wonder if that would be good information to feed into the LLM for autocomplete. That snippet is helpful if you want to write on condition at a time, but say you have a dozen conditions if statements to write with that snippet. After writing one, the LLM could generate a suggestion for the other 11 conditions using that same snippet, while also taking into consideration the different types of values and what you might be checking against.
As for RAM/processing, you're not wrong there, but with specialized models, specialized hardware, and improvements in model design, the number of people working under such restricted environments where they are concerned about resource use will decrease over time, and the utility of these tools will increase. Sure a lower-tech solution works just fine, and it'll continue to work fine, but at some point the higher-tech solution will have similar levels of friction and resource use for much better utility.
If looking for local email, why not a traditional client (thunderbird, claws, even outlook) or the more flexible/cli friendly maildir and notmuch? There are a bunch of front ends, including WebUIs https://notmuchmail.org/frontends/
Is what you're looking for a pretty good fit for how email was originally used? Or am missing something obvious
Actually, that is what I would like, but if I use Thunderbird on my Maildirs (served by Dovecot), the search (particularly in the mail body) is not really feasible. Perhaps there is a search integration for Dovecot that I am not aware of??
I would presume it’s entirely subjective and the significance of each song is encoded in the context of life at that particular time.
There were a couple of months this year where my kids wanted to listen to Sesame Street “Letter L” and “The Word is No” while commuting. Hearing those songs on a playlist would remind me whatever was happening, but would have absolutely no significance to you.
Absolutely.. I do this monthly/yearly thing primarily for me. Some of my friends follow along because I listen to a lot of music so I'm sort of a recommendation engine for them, but I never think about that when I am adding stuff to these playlists.
It's purely to recall and revisit what I was personally enjoying at the time.
I don't really connect music to life events though, like if I go back to May 2022 for example I won't listen to those songs and think "oh I remember XYZ about that time"... It will just be re-discovering some music I had perhaps forgotten about, since I listen to a lot of music and can't really remember all of it.
Å is in Finnish Keyboards, but totally useless. F12 is easily accessible in Hacker's Keyboard. ∆ is in Gboard.
There no gui, you use openscad to generate STL and view that in Android STL-viewer. You can automatize it so that it is almost like the real thing.
file_to_watch=$1
last_modified=$(stat -c %Y "$file_to_watch")
while true; do
current_modified=$(stat -c %Y "$file_to_watch")
if [ "$last_modified" != "$current_modified" ]; then
openscad $1 -o $1.stl
last_modified="$current_modified"
fi
sleep 1 # Check every second
done
https://freedoom.github.io/ does that for the still proprietary DOOM assets. Though the DOOM engine itself is open source, so a slight different situation than Command and Conquer.
Wealth generated on top of underpaid labor is a reoccurring theme -- and in this case maybe surprisingly exacerbated by LLMs.
Would this be different if the underlying code had a viral license? If google's infrastructure was built on a GPL'ed libcurl [0], would they have investment in the code/a team with resources to evaluate security reports (slop or otherwise)? Ditto for libxml.
Does GPL help the linux kernel get investment from it's corporate users?
[0] Perhaps an impossible hypothetical. Would google have skipped over the imaginary GPL'ed libcurl or libxml for a more permissively licensed library? And even if they didn't, would a big company's involvement in an openly developed ecosystem create asymmetric funding/goals, a la XMPP or Nix?
Copyleft licenses are made to support freedom for everyone and particularly end-users. They only limit freedom of developers / maintainers to exploit the code and users.
> Does GPL help the linux kernel get investment from it's corporate users?
GPL has helped "linux kernel the project" greatly, but companies invest in it out of their self-interest. They want to benefit from upstream improvements and playing nicely by upstreaming changes is just much cheaper than maintaining own kernel fork.
On other side you have companies like Sony that used BSD OS code for their game consoles for decades and contributed shit.
I would have thought supporting libcurl and libxml would also be in a company's self-interest. Is that companies do this for GPL'ed linux kernel but not BSD evidence that strong copyleft licensing limits the extent to which OSS projects are exploited/under-resourced?
> I would have thought supporting libcurl and libxml would also be in a company's self-interest.
Unfortunately majority of companies don't have something special they really need to add to cURL. They okay using it as is - so they have no reason to pay salary to cURL developers regardless of licensing.
Yes they want it to be secure, but as always nobody except few very large orgs care about security for real.
> Is that companies do this for GPL'ed linux kernel but not BSD evidence that strong copyleft licensing limits the extent to which OSS projects are exploited/under-resourced?
It certainly helped with "under-resourced" part. Whatever you considered "exploited" is up to discussion. From project perspective ofc copyleft licensing benefited the project.
Linus Torvalds end up with a good amount of publicity and is now somewhat well set-off, but almost all other kernel developers live in obscurity earning somewhat average salaries. I pretty sure we can all agree that Linux Kernel made a massive positive impact on whole humanity and compared to that payoff to stakeholders is rather small IMO.
I can see "ill defined" causing problems. But isn't an explicit code of conduct more defined than none? (Assuming I'm reading that correctly from your comment.)
There aren't too many epithets floating around that offend me specifically. And I haven't heard anyone say I shouldn't/don't exist. So it's hard for me personally to feel the need for CoC and the like. But I'm all for policy that protects everyone against that kind of abuse -- which seems to be on the rise. Are there better alternatives?
reply