arcfour

I swear I have seen plenty of PCs attempt a PXE boot before failing and continuing on to the next boot option. It probably isn't the default for most "personal" machines but... That's not really a guarantee I would want to hang my hat on...

You need to compile a device tree for every single device you want to support individually, whereas x86 has ACPI to avoid that mess. ACPI is its own mess, yes. And UBoot is great. But it isn't a standalone replacement for a unified firmware interface/"BIOS"/whatever.

It would be even nicer to be carried by a bunch of servants and fed exotic fruits and not have to work, too, but isn't comparison the thief of joy?

Seems excessively pessimistic.

Probably never? Unless they get super far out of sync, a "medium" model just isn't the right choice for a "large" (or "extra large") model task.

I use Sol 6.4 because it's newer (and "big") unless there is a specific benchmark that 6.1 Astra scores better on that I think I need.

Or I might try both and pick whichever I prefer for a given task...

So I have been failing to do half of my career this whole time?

The people you hear from are famous personalities... That's the nature of being a famous personality. There are plenty of us who are just normal people with opinions of our own and no desire to cultivate a public name or face for ourselves...

It doesn't have to, you can set X509 name constraints which say "the CA may only issue/may not issue certificates for these Subjects," or you can set CAA in DNS, for example.

(Of course, the former isn't really intended to constrain trusted Root CAs, moreso internal PKIs. But it is an option people should know about!)

Would be nice if we could choose, say, multiple 4090s or otherwise customize the configuration (or maybe I just missed the button for that?)

Why would you be blocked? I cannot imagine why you would be for this specific task unless the supposed backdoor turned out to be real.

I am in CVP too as I have worked professionally as a security engineer for various reputable companies for almost 10 years now and I got refusals to reverse engineer MS-DOS malware from 1994 because Anthropic has placed a blanket ban on reverse engineering any malware at all. Even the model would admit that was ridiculous.

OpenAI has no such restriction and I don't even need to use my Daybreak access, either, to analyze modern malware samples.

It's asinine, truly.

This happened 3 weeks ago and no release was published on NPM containing the code.

A very pertinent comment from zod's maintainer, from that page:

> EDIT Sept 24 — All of my packages on npm have migrated to use environment-scoped staged publishing triggerable only by workflow_dispatch. This means 2FA is always required, so even if (god forbid) an npm or GitHub token is compromised, it will not be possible for the attacker to publish new versions.

So at least that's good to see. It would be nice for them to actually remove the commit from git history, though...