0x00cl

We might never know, but they probably didn't read the news and started working to get this out, they were probably working on it for a while now.

Personally the question is if they are "saving" other projects or news so they can be released in case a competitor makes a move? Who knows if this was ready days or weeks ago and were waiting on someone to drop some news, so they can shadow those news.

I think this change is more to do with politics rather than "security". Those kind of things where companies or gov, need to be certified with those super secure certificates and can't be using software that uses SHA-1. I don't have proof, but I'm not doubting it either.

This is what I saw in one of the mails. > > There are organizations where SHA-1 is blanket banned across the board - regardless of its use

And also on git 3.0 breaking changes. > > SHA-1 ... recommended against in FIPS 140-2 and similar certifications

Since SHA-1 isn't used for security in git, they should've instead moved to a non-cryptographic hash function such as MurmurHash3 and avoid all these problems, instead of moving to SHA-256 until SHA-256 is broken and need to move to the next cryptographic hash that is now incompatible with previous versions of git repositories.

I have tried En Croissant and its personally its a nice GUI and easy to use. It allows you to download stockfish and others right from their GUI.

Hey, I took a look at your project, I'm not someone who deals with schematics or KiCad but I'm still interested in these kind of things. I read the motivations in the docs and understood why would someone try to create a new language after looking at SKiDL, but still feels like it could've been simply a python library/package instead of having to do the work of creating a new language and having to deal with the language and interpreter/compiler. I'm sure a more object oriented approach would have made it a better experience to script schematics, specially with all the tooling Python has (such as `uv` to manage project, `ruff` to lint and format, etc). Regarding your language, just wondering why does led and supply need quotation marks but resistors and capacitors that some not only include numbers such as (10k) don't need to. It feels unnecessary to make that difference, specially for a script that tried to be simpler

This is just a false dichotomy. Sure researches want money, credit but not at the cost of harming users or doing illegal things.

You could run a DNS server and configure the server with a whitelist of allowed IPs on the network level, so connections are dropped before even reaching your DNS service.

For example, any red-hat based linux distro comes with Firewalld, you could set rules that by default will block all external connections and only allow your kids and their friends IP addresses to connect to your server (and only specifically on port 53). So your DNS server will only receive connections from the whitelisted IPs. Of course the only downside is that if their IP changes, you'll have to troubleshoot and whitelist the new IP, and there is the tiny possibility that they might be behind CGNAT where their IPv4 is shared with another random person, who is looking to exploit DNS servers.

But I'd say that is a pretty good solution, no one will know you are even running a DNS service except for the whitelisted IPs.

I'm not sure what you mean by Socrates was proven dead wrong.

The study you linked doesn't show that people are becoming dumber because of LLMs, its just showing that when you offload tasks to these tools your brain engages less in that specific task, just like you'd do with a calculator, instead of doing complex calculations on paper, the calculator will do them for you, or when writing and using a spell-checker or using a search engine, instead of opening a book and searching. The question is whether in the long-term cognitive capacity is reduced, and like I said before this argument predates LLMs (All the way back to Socrates)

Also, take the study with a grain of salt as this is a small sample with only 54 participants for a single task on a short term study.

Personally, I believe LLMs just allows us to have a higher level of abstraction.

> We should be very concerned for the next generation. When you have the constant temptation of digging yourself out of a problem just by asking an LLM how will you ever learn anything?

This is just the same concern whenever a new technology appears.

* Socrates argued that writing would weaken memory, that it would create only superficially knowledge but incapable of really understanding. But it didn't destroy it. It allowed to store information and share it with many others far away.

* The internet and web indexers made information instantly accessible, allowing you to search for the information you just need, the fear is that people would just copy from the internet, yet researching information became way faster, any one with Internet access could access this information and learn themselves, just look at the amount of educational websites with courses to learn.

Each time a new technology came and people feared that it could degrade knowledge, the tools only helped us to increase our knowledge.

Just like with books and the internet, people could simply copy and not learn anything, its not exclusive to LLMs. The issue isn't in the tool itself, but how we use it. The new generation will probably instead of learning how to search, they will need to learn how to prompt, ask and evaluate whether the LLM isn't hallucinating or not.

Ladybird as a project is not that old, and it's still in pre-alpha, if they are going to make important changes then it's better now than later.

How are you making money on this side project?