ethin

Apple's accessibility is genuinely bad. As in, it's bad enough that Apple just doesn't bother fixing VoiceOver bugs at all, for years on end sometimes. Google isn't really much better. Linux is getting better but it's got a ways to go, sadly, and the accessibility isn't even remotely as consistent as Windows is, unfortunately. I wish I didn't have to use Windows, but Wine pretty much just got MSAA and doesn't have UIA, and neither translate to ATK/AT-SPI so Orca has no way of interacting with them.

I feel that people still need to support Windows for a while. I for example am stuck on Windows because it (still) has the best accessibility out of all of the operating systems (and Wine is not a replacement for that). It's unfortunate, and I'm hoping it will change in the future.

I'm not really sure what your getting at. The entire reason that masked LEs are opposed is because (1) it makes it impossible to hold them to account and (2) it makes it trivial to impersonate any LE (ICE hasn't exactly tried all that hard to make special gear for themselves, just buying what's on EBay and similar, so literally anyone could just buy the same gear they're using and impersonate an ICE officer, and since ICE doesn't like identifying themselves, you would have no immediate way of distinguishing between a random citizen who wants to ruff you up or murder you versus a LEO)

I mean, if it uses the exact same identifiers and maybe even comments, then sure, that's pretty good evidence. However, 99.99999999999 percent of the time this will not be the case. As in, the super-super-super-majority of LLM-generated code is customized for the specific use case it's being employed in. As such, claiming any kind of infringement, let alone proving it, will be insanely difficult.

> The prospect of being sued because the LLM outputted training code you're not allowed to use, or to relicense, is exciting?

The problem with this is that if someone sues you for this they have to somehow prove that you actually infringed. They can't just point to the code and say "See, mah, infringement!" The legal system does recognize that it is very possible for two people, completely independently, to arrive at a nearly identical solution.

The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained/forced to behave makes them do one of two things, neither of which is educational or helpful:

1. They ask you a "hard question" but then immediately give you some kind of "hint" which makes it obvious what the "answer" is (or, even worse, they just tell you what it is).

2. They get pedantic (and I mean maximum emphasis on the word), to the point that they will nitpick the exact, precise wording you use, even if the context makes it blatantly obvious what you meant. GPT is currently the biggest offender in this area (it is ridiculously pedantic even though I haven't told it to be so).

And yes, in case anyone is wondering, I do actually read the output of tools like Claude and I have tried, repeatedly, to get them to do something like this, and one of the two aforementioned things always happens for some reason. I'm not sure if this is a problem with how they were trained, an issue with their system instructions, or what.

Am I the only one who wonders if there is a way to get the kind of performance we want out of non-soldered components/SOC designs? Like from what I've heard, it's a "physics says no" problem, but I'm not sure if that's actually true (not being an expert in this technology) or if it's just the excuse many companies use to justify soldering everything to make serviceability impossible. And it would be really neat if this is actually being looked into by labs right now (possibly with AI's help), since areas like that are where I think (non) LLM AIs might be very useful. Same thing for medicine, materials, etc.

Would you also apply this to cryptography or, well, really any security library? Because I hope the answer will be no...

I can't tell if this is satire or not, but I'm suspecting that it is

I think it's more the image formats PDF supports? I could be wrong, but there was that forcedentry vulnerability (which was insanely cool, even if really bad)

I'm pretty sure not even the safe languages would help you here. PDF allows you to pretty much run arbitrary code since it supports javascript, images, and a bunch of other things I'm forgetting, and you can't not implement javascript support or otherwise be selective about what you support with it because then all the end-users will complain when they get that one PDF that they need to fill out but it needs JS because... Nobody knows.

I mean maybe but... There's nothing forcing you to use Claude or what have you to play around is there? I mean an employer might force you to use it but you don't have to in your free time. That's one way I comfort myself lol

All I'll say in response is: Good!

If this company was so incompetent that their private keys were a single byte, I seriously wonder what other areas they're incompetent in but that they've ventured into anyway. When you fail so spectacularly and so publicly at something like being a certificate authority, in the manner that eMudra did, it's rather hard not to wonder.

Also important for physical modelling and geometric acoustics -- you need a geometric mesh (made of triangles) to work with. Which parts of could be sent to the GPU for processing as well.

> ... and by doing exactly what you're complaining about:

How exactly does requiring people to identify themselves actually protect anyone or slow them down? Their identity system doesn't even work reliably (it's just your classic "verify your ID" scheme), and it failed to verify my ID no matter how I did it, so in the end I gave up. Even assuming it was reliable, I don't see how it stops bad actors from doing it, since we all know how easy it is for most sufficiently resourceful actors to forge IDs, and I suspect these digital ID verification services have all kinds of vulnerabilities that would make them easier to bypass compared to the tools the state has to prove an ID is legit. For the higher tiers of CVP there may be more requirements, but do you seriously think these companies aren't just using AI to verify those tiers too?