jonathanstrange

I tried to find a mitigation using a ufw filter that rejects IPv4 packets with too large headers but it didn't work. It broke something essential and I had to switch it off again. I'd be interested in hearing about a temporary mitigation using firewall rules.

That's the problem, though. One of my books costs more than $100 USD and that's even on the cheaper side, and as you rightly point out, I had zero choice or saying in the pricing. Some more established authors can influence it, either by publisher choice or by talking with the acquisition editor but that's rare.

The academic book publishing industry is very predatory, which is why so many authors nowadays support open textbook initiatives.

What I can say with certainty is that in many poorer countries scientific research would be impossible without piracy. Universities just don't have the budgets and libraries are often abysmal (unless you work in the capital and it has a prestige state library).

In my experience, real pirates have a strong code of ethics. I've never seen a pirate site that didn't at least say "buy it if you like it". Leechers are a different story, but to be fair most of them just don't have the money to buy the stuff they download.

To cut a long story short, I'd personally say pirating is bad if you have the money to buy it and you don't just pirate to try first, whereas if you don't have the money it's okay (permissible) and doesn't take away any sales.

Who had this idea? This would have the effect that paid services get more expensive and free services get lower quality, stop working, or become illegal.

Putting that aside, I'd be interested in how they'd want to measure this when in practice network traffic is delivered over all kinds of CDNs and rented servers from who knows where. The technicalities of determining who would have to pay seem very non-trivial to me.

It's still advisable to pretend that it might work, though. Just saying...you've got to think strategically when you work in the national security business.

I'll remember that next time someone claims I can't just hack an AI company to get their model, training data and research.

Give it a few years and nobody will want to run software that hasn't been debugged and hardened by AIs. It's going to be much more thorough than human auditors - it already is, to some extent, and faster anyway, but I'm talking about the future. So it's going to be the latter, complete normalization of AI. You can still write the program by hand, but you'll need AI to make it trustworthy and secure enough, if only because the attackers will also be mostly AI.

It's unobtanium so nobody should care about it. Any frontier AI company can nowadays create models with ridiculous resource and token usage that will get extremely high scores, but they're of no use when you can't use them.

I take this opportunity to give feedback on Argon. The limitations are a problem. I have a Pro subscription and Argon already stops working after 3-4 prompts with long delays afterwards. It's virtually useless right now even when you pay monthly for it. It is better for some tasks than 3.1 Pro, though. Not much in my experience but it can sometimes fix errors that 3.1 has problems with. I never use Flash models since they often give abysmal results.

So I'm stuck with using Gemini Pro 3.1 for now.

It seems to me that the scenario is that someone spoofing a cell tower can disable your phone practically forever and recovery requires expert interference. Maybe I'm mistaken, though, it's not clear from the description whether a spoofed cell tower would suffice and whether it needs to remain in the vicinity to repeat the attack often enough or whether sending 200 corrupt SMS messages in one go would suffice.

The Wired article is not about people who violated travel visa. Not at all.

It's marked as an informal disapproving use, so it depends on whether you want to convey this message or not. But Yes, a juror could say "What we had to do was slave labor, we didn't even get proper breaks" and you would perfectly well understand what they said and meant with that message.

"Let's be honest": Why would I care that you care so much that these problems were solved automatically when you yourself don't even seem to be aiming at a better understanding and talk in disrespectful ways about the people who seek a deeper understanding? You could read a book about the history of mathematics, for example Roger Penrose's Road to Reality.

IMHO it makes no sense to admit you don't know what "the credit" means and continue to participate in this discussion. You don't seem to understand the culture and motivation of professors and postdocs doing research level mathematics.