mrob

>the kernel handed those saved options from the request socket to the new connection without copying them, then freed them immediately when the connection went away, while another CPU could still be reading them to build a handshake reply.

If this requires a multi-core system to exploit, it's good news for most of the consumer routers that will never get updates. Saved by cheap single-core hardware.

>forcing AV1 regardless of the presence of on-device hardware support

I'm posting from a machine without AV1 acceleration. I disabled AV1 in Firefox's about:config and Youtube falls back to VP9.

>Isn’t this usually defined by “open” vs “free” ?

No. In the context of software licensing, "open" vs. "free" is more a question of philosophy than any practical difference. The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition agree so closely that I can't think of any license that meets one but not the other. But the Free Software Foundation sees freedom as an end in itself, even if it requires sacrificing quality, while the Open Source Initiative sees freedom as a tool to be used to improve software quality.

"Open weight" is obviously intended to be analogous to "open source". The name only exists because people rightly complained about people calling weights "open source" when they were not. As such, the most reasonable interpretation is something that obeys the Open Source Definition as closely as possible, but ignores clause 2 because obeying it is legally impossible when the source code infringes copyright (as is the case with almost all LLMs). If it ignores any of the other clauses, it's instead closer to "source available" software, so the correct analogous name is "weights available".

I'm of the opinion that improved developer productivity has been a net negative for at least a decade. Regardless of my opinion of LLMs, I don't want it any easier for people to add more antifeatures and pointless changes.

Giving developers the ability to impose Comic Sans on the users is bad. Giving users the ability to make their own tasteless choices is good. It's my computer and I'll make it ugly if I want to. Windows 3.1 included the famous "Hot Dog Stand" theme. The loss of this freedom only encourages user-hostile practices.

Agreed. Note the increased spacing to separate the generic "Help" button from the others that are specific to the dialog box. Aligning the buttons to the text input fields would break this separation and it could also give the false impression that the buttons were related to the input fields.

Considering trends in CVEs, printing is only growing importance. Printing has the unique advantage of giving you a record of data that's durable, unhackable, and possible to read without computers. If you print something, you can be confident that it's still going to be the same when you read it later.

Guns don't scale like drones. No matter how many guns you own, you can only shoot two at a time, and only one if you care about aim.

Building an autonomous drone swarm capable of nuclear-weapon-tier kill count is far easier than building a nuclear weapon. We already know how dangerous military drones are, and those are still mostly bottlenecked by relying on human-powered target identification. Building drones to indiscriminately kill unarmored civilians is an easier task.

The important question now is finding out if it's the cannabinoids or the smoke inhalation. This study doesn't attempt to distinguish the two.

It doesn't matter. The proof verifier is traditional deterministic software with 0% hallucination rate, so any hallucinated proofs are easily removed.

>Indeed there are theorems that say the tool must malfunction at least sometimes.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem only states that there are true statements that can never be proved to be true. That limits what tools can do, but it's not a "malfunction". The exact same limitation applies to humans. A genuine malfunction would be if the tool "proved" a false statement to be true. That actually has happened before because of bugs in proof checkers, but software bugs can be found and fixed, and proof checkers are simple enough that it's possible to write many different implementations. It's extraordinarily unlikely that the same malfunction occurs in all of them.