moring

This is a problem with the permission to grant being too coarse. Your app needs blanket access to the clipboard contents. Things would be nicer when it only needs access to relevant URLs in the clipboard.

But that would require the OS to know what a relevant URL is, so the permission must be scoped to a prefix, or maybe a regex(1) to be applied when the clipboard contains text content.

(1) restricted to "proper" regular expressions that don't have the security issues of Perl-style REs.

> it's being shoved in our throats by a small, wealthy and powerful minority.

... who draw their wealth and power from society, because society decides they deserve it.

If determinism is actually a goal, then these are solvable problems.

> Despite this, real-world LLMs still produce varying outputs due to factors like: > - Floating-point precision limitations

This by itself is deterministic, as per IEEE 754, as long as no parameters are "left to the implementation". The Java virtual machine had this problem before, and fixed all parameters to be deterministic. Depending on the hardware, this comes at a performance cost (if some hardware cannot support the chosen parameters) which is why the JVM introduced lenient floating-point to let the code choose between determinism or performance.

> - Hardware and parallel processing variability > - Decoding tie-breakers > - Other sampling parameters like top-k or top-p that may still introduce variation

I'm assuming this refers to different HW architectures, because hardware variability at the lowest level (silicon patterning and doping) is already dealt with by circuit designers. Again determinism can be achieved by prescribing the exact procedure, which the hardware must replicate in behavior but not necessarily in implementation. And again, this may come at a performance cost when specific hardware cannot implement the prescribed procedure at all, or only by keeping actual hardware parts unused.

--

All that said, I don't think that determinism is all that useful, because it only guarantees that the output will remain constant as long as you don't touch anything. In reality, you want the output to be "similar" as long as you only change "irrelevant" things, and determinism won't help you with that.

It should be noted that we call these things "kafkaesque" because Kafka himself feared them, at a time when neither computers nor AI were a thing. Unless we go full Skynet, no AI is building itself into critical systems. Humans are putting AI there, and they do so because society decides that they should be allowed to.

The full quote from the article is:

> Just like the other stack allocators we talked about, this one can also work in a multi threaded environment. You might be tempted to make the two updates transactional – like with a compare and swap loop – but it isn’t needed.

Unfortunately they don't explain HOW this is going to work...

Even worse, you'll often encounter a situation where:

Party A makes statement A,

Party B makes statement B,

Statements A and B are in contradition,

Party A claims that both parties agree that statement A is true,

Party B claims that both parties agree that statement B is true.

If you seek truth about reality, you better take humans out of the loop...

The point of small modular reactors is not the cost of the first one, but that the cost goes down with each subsequent one. The cost of the first one is expected to be high. IMHO this is very well explained in "How Big Things Get Done" by Bent Flyvbjerg.

> Facts themselves are not partisan.

That statement itself is partisan. So is the meta-statement about who agrees with that first statement.

Really, any messy argument is about the claim who made which claims.

> a CLI app does exactly what you ask for, and has a manual documenting exactly what command do what, and the output is consistent, the same command does the same thing period

This is a very software-engineery point of view and totally false for the ordinary user. Heck, it is even false for me as a software engineer.

> since you know people like moving a mouse and clicking on buttons

No, they like well-designed user interfaces, and the UI design of a typical CLI is abysmal.

Didn't even think of this, but yes: 5km/h ~ 1m/s, which is 1/10^8 the real c. This multiplies the sun's Schwarzschild radius (normally ca. 3km according to Wikipedia) by 10^16, making it 310^13 km, with 1AU = 15010^6 km.

It's yet another xkcd-level apocalypse.

This does not match my experience. The amount of manual tuning needed for memory management in C/C++ (which Java was designed to improve upon) was orders of magnitude greater than with Java just to get it correct, let alone efficient in terms of memory usage and performance.

In that case, isn't a sufficiently reasoned "why" a contribution in itself?

Not trying to downplay the time wasted to reject the PR, though.