harshreality

Isn't that an argument for pointing an agent at symfony or laravel, not at drupal?

If it bothers you, you could work around the semantics and talk about its empirical purpose or observed purpose, vs intended purpose, rather than using purpose and expecting it to be interpreted in a particular way.

I think the jarring alternative definition of "purpose" is an intentional mental hack: to break people out of orienting themselves around design intent, when processes often go out of alignment with that. It's easy for humans to fool themselves. Taking a dispassionate, empirical view when considering what a process is doing, or analyzing what its range of behaviors is, can illuminate many problems.

When no strangers seem to be around, but we might be under surveillance, are we all supposed to tailor our legal behavior so that no random person or AI surveillance could reasonably view it as possibly illegal or problematic?

How can someone have an expectation of privacy if they take pictures of a gun in a waymo, and upload them to google drive... but no expectation of privacy against waymo calling the cops when they see the same thing with their own cameras?

Maybe we need very clear, standardized signals for entering a surveillance zone (where someone not obviously present, possibly a corporate stooge or AI or simpler-than-AI automated detection system, is judging behavior) so that people realize that private behavior (like casually showing off guns to each other, safely, which I've seen done myself and was not cause for alarm—guns were legal) is no longer private.

The steelman -against- what waymo did is:

Guns are generally legal, even in California. This is America, not the EU. Nobody was harmed, nobody was threatened. This is like calling the cops on someone open carrying because you don't like open carry.

That is what a lot of pro-2A libertarians would argue.

The steelman -pro- what waymo did is:

Private conveyance. Even though the occupants thought they were "alone", there was someone/something else present, which felt threatened (or thought the passengers represented a potential threat to others) and called police, as most cabbies or uber drivers probably would.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. This is a grey area, and I think it'll likely resolve in favor of waymo, and it won't really bother anyone except the staunch libertarians. If the gun hadn't been illegally possessed, likely nothing would've happened after the cops were called.

I guess, but that seems unusual. Pins are split all the time, for instance to turn a 6pin PCI connector into a substandard 8pin one, but the reverse? Merging multiple source pins into fewer output pins by shorting them together?

Visual inspection would normally catch situations like that, and then you might be able to figure out if it's okay with continuity checks and voltage checks with a multimeter on the relevant pints of the psu to see if those pins are different voltages... as long as the PSU powers the connector in the absence of load or sense pin signalling.

A PSU cable tester is valuable for this. They're much cheaper than a replacement PSU, and you can plug in cables wherever they fit on a PSU, and test whether the output is correct for the CPU/PCI/motherboard/SATA connector you want to plug it into. The PSU and cable might be a black box, but the output is always testable.

Sure, that's plausible... a facebook exec so dumb that they're using their personal ISP connection to run a VPN for others, and even dumber that they don't notice or don't care about a massive amount of torrent traffic through that VPN.

It's not really a VPN for piracy purposes unless it's a commercial, no-log VPN. Since when a VPN is used to move the point at which traffic enters the internet, the owner of the VPN exit will be held to account.

They can try to claim they were running a "private" VPN and gave random people (from reddit and discord) internet access through it. They can try to claim they don't keep logs. Meanwhile, for a facebook VP with suspected activity tied to facebook corporate, the rightsholder will subpoena every digital device in the person's home, depose all their family and close friends, subpoena their facebook email...

Julia might just be the closest thing at the moment to Matlab without being a Matlab clone. I think you're overestimating the learning curve. It has a REPL, with tab completion and ?<funcname> for high-quality help (without resorting to a browser or llm).

AlphaGo Master, the much stronger[1] one that beat Ke Jie a year later in 2017, ran on a single 4x TPU (v2?) workstation.

[1] From wikipedia, citing deepmind's paper: 4858 Elo vs 3739 Elo

I too would love anubis to use better CS, if available. Perhaps you have some ideas for @xena, instead of just letting anubis continue on the trajectory of iterating its PoW approach?

You're arguing worst-case, and people running anubis are saying it dramatically helps in their experience, because they're not getting too many of the sorts of bots that people like you and Tavis (correctly) argue are theoretically possible. So the argument that it's "bad CS" falls flat.

A better, perhaps the best, argument is that a worse bot mix might appear tomorrow, so anubis should be used as a runway for a better solution, and not as a solution in itself. If only everyone with a website had the desire (or AI tokens) to implement their own better solution. In some cases even desire or a lot of tokens isn't enough. I mean, you think kernel.org folks haven't put some serious thought into it? And yet, as HN argues about it, there's kernel.org running anubis at difficulty 5.

If you want to argue that there's excessive enthusiasm about anubis, which is neither a permanent solution nor a solution against all bots run for all purposes (some bot authors are cleverer than others, and you don't have to block everything, just enough to reduce resource use to tolerable levels)... fine.

However, the refrain from naysayers isn't that there's too much enthusiasm. It's that anubis doesn't make sense as a theoretical barrier against bots. Who cares as long as it works empirically, even briefly? Are you suggesting people let their sites continue to be degraded or unusable until they find a better solution, even though PoW challenges can improve the situation today?

Not everyone has the luxury of writing their own web app designed to handle massive bot traffic at minimal cost, gutting functionality to meet that requirement if necessary.

I noticed a couple of weeks ago that 1-2 orders of magnitude more bots were getting past anubis challenges. However, it would be incorrect to conclude that it's doing nothing and now worthless aside from heating up visitors' cpus. If I turn it off, I see >2x bots.

The next salvo in the war of attrition will probably be when anubis switches to wasm hashx, which the author suggested, in previous HN threads, is on the roadmap.

If bots quickly adapt (Claude vibe-coded JIT wasm-to-native-transpiler for hashx challenge algorithms?), that may be the end of anubis and efforts like it. If they don't, I expect more HN threads with people complaining that such compiler efforts are possible and therefore PoW-gated sites are doing it wrong... even if those sites stay usable.

If they were even slightly concerned that the scope went beyond what they were aware of with JSTOR, they would've either immediately contacted police or disconnected the laptop. The timeline in the report outlines that they discovered the laptop at 8am, and were in internal communications with their bosses and MIT's lawyers before someone finally contacted police at 9:45am.

They knew what was going on before they found the laptop. They had been briefed by someone at MIT who was in contact with JSTOR. I suspect that everyone on the networking staff (and possibly most of the university) knew of the JSTOR downloading situation after the second incident in October. JSTOR had blocked MIT for 3 days, and that must have caught people's attention.

Once they found the laptop, they involved police despite knowing to a virtual certainty that the problem with the laptop was that it was scraping JSTOR, again. They didn't know yet that it was Aaron, but they would've known it would turn out to be someone ideologically just like him.

There was nothing suspicious about it. It was simply jeopardizing MIT's contract with JSTOR. The use of a data closet like that was very bad manners.