Bawoosette

I've worked on private servers for a few games that were shut down, starting long before LLMs were invented. The answer in these cases is that human culture has value to most people. Not only are the gameplay experiences themselves valuable to preserve for new and old players alike, but they also embody periods of time that were in some ways better. As a child, a large amount of my social experiences played out through MMO-type games, which future generations probably won't have, given how worldwide social media controls are effectively requiring people to have an online speech license. Even if such an experience could never legally be rolled out on a large scale again, it's still probably worth holding onto what you can, for smaller communities.

Decomps take the preservation of human culture a step further. In my projects, it has become clear that Windows is no longer a reliable platform, and x86 has a sketchy future, but decompilations can help keep a game alive by moving it somewhere else for the sake of accessibility. They also enable further understanding (whether by AI or people) of the game, along with fixing it and expanding upon it.

Vibing a new experience is valuable, but it's not a substitute for what's already been made.

The $17 figure is Anthropic's monthly cost if purchased annually. I'll use monthly numbers.

Anthropic's Pro is $20 and corresponds to Z.ai's Lite at $18

Anthropic's 5x Max is $100 and corresponds to Z.ai's Pro at $80

Anthropic's 20x Max is $200 and corresponds to Z.ai's Max at $168

What are you referring to? Given the audience, my instinct is to assume "plan" refers to the GLM Coding Plans, which are all cheaper than their Anthropic counterparts. As far as I can tell, the API costs are also all cheaper than their roughly equivalently capable Anthropic models.

Most of this seems to be related to harness issues, specifically prompts provided by Claude Code. The upside of this is that it is likely cheap and easy for Anthropic to fix the issues by revising their approach to prompting their new models.

The title (currently "OpenAI's accidental cyberattack against Hugging Face is science fiction") suggests some information had been hidden that makes the incident less significant than claimed. The article argues the opposite, and the last two words of the full title are "that happened."

For "agentic use and coding," they are trained to take useful actions, not produce desirable natural language writing.

When I started university, it did indeed have a dedicated building that was essentially a computer lab specifically for testing. In theory, cheating was prevented by having people walk around the lab watching the students. Toward the end, I did have a couple exams that needed the absolutely batshit insane malware installed on a personal device, but I think if I were to do it again today, I could still demand to use the testing center instead. It still exists.

From my experience, the safeguards only come up during exploit development. You are free to do reverse engineering and even the first half of vulnerability research (i.e. vulnerability discovery) and it only stops once you want it to actually write the exploit.

To be fair, that was much of my actual experience with human professors in university.

This post is about the search engine, not the web browser. I use Brave instead of Google search because Google presents me with captchas every time I use it, and Brave's search engine is good enough. I already use Firefox and ublock origin.

To be fair, I associate Brave more with its search engine than its browser, but as far as I know it does not have an email client.

Presumably, they specify what the product was that they bought, in case the product listing is changed in the future.

Your link already says "The job you are looking for was not found." It looks like it lost a "004" at the end of the URL?