notabot

If it doesn’t sound like a jet plane taking off, is it really a server at all?

About as long as that dinosaur’s neck.

Yes, that will still leak as the value of the variable will be substituted into the command line before it’s executed, so it’ll show up in the process table. Using the <(echo ...) redirection is replaced by a file descriptor that connects to an anonymous pipe.

To be fair, they’re not actually telling you what to do, just telling you what they think the consequence of a certain action will be.

That looks a little sus to me.

I can actually feel my body tensing up with rage when I look at this.

Might want to cycle through them, but treat the unworn pairs really gently for the first few wears. Msybe they’ll still be ok.

Are you speaking to us from the afterlife? What’s the wifi signal like there?

Agonised Linux user noises “Argh, it burns!” “Not the fire, touching windows!”

No, no, that’s Play-doh, a Plato is what Australians serve food on.

I remember being bullied in school and going home after being beaten by other kids

Now imagine that that beating carries on when you get home, albiet on a different form. Kids gang up on each other online at least as brutally as in the playground. Limiting access to social media removes the peer pressure to put yourself in harms way, and removes the bullies’ ability to access their victim. It is absolutely not a perfect solution, as you, say bullying happened before the internet, but it does go sone way to ensuring kids have some form of sanctuary without being pressured into leaving it.

The second, and, if anything, more horrific, issue is the amount of grooming that goes on online. There is an Ofsted report Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges that talks about this is more detail. Ideally this is the sort of problem that would be dealt with by social media companies, but unless, and until, it is, it is safer to avoid children accessing these networks unaccompanied.

this is duct tape with a side of privacy violation for everyone with barely a thought about how to even do the age verification well.

Age verification is a thorny question, and I’m certain there is no perfect answer. No smartphones for under 13s is a fairly easy first step. Children that young can’t enter into a contract anyway, so the parents, or another adult have to be involved. Smartphone free childhood is a voluntary pledge, but multiple schools in the area are encouraging their parents to sign up.

Age verification for social media is trickier, but I actually quite liked the bill that was moving forward in California, which just had your device send a flag saying you were either; under 13, 13-16, 16-18, or 18+. That way, services have no excuse for serving up inappropriate content. As always, it’s not perfect. In particular, there are questions about who is responsible for ensuring the flag is set correctly. I think they went astray here, and it should be the owner of the device who controls it, unless it is explicitly made for children, in which case the 18+ flag should not be available.

We are not seeing anything about funding the educational system, trying to attract more teachers, aiming for smaller class sizes, funding activities and clubs or more support for parents to spend time with their kids.

Absolutely, this is a huge problem. The VAT imposed on private school fees is supposed to be ringfenced for this sort of thing, but it’s not enough. We should be putting much more into educating and safeguarding our next generation.

This is quite popular amongst parents where I am. There’s also a big local push to avoid kids having smartphones before they’re 13. Hopefully by that point they’re mature enough to have a better understanding of what they’re being exposed to, and are better equiped to know when to turn to an adult if something is upsetting or worrying them online.

Notably this isn’t about restricting access to the internet, as kids have many other ways to get online at home, school, a friend’s house, or even the library. Instead it’s about ensuring they aren’t exposing themselves to things they aren’t ready for without an adult to guide them.

ETA: A lot of kids are pretty keen on this too, especially if they have had a bad experience online. The idea that none of their peers has a smartphone or social media means there’s less peer pressure too.

So you’re saying Superman put, or lured, the boy there in the first place, to give him plausible deniability for intentionally make nazi puree? I’m not sure he’d have waited for an excuse…

That’s nuts!

It’s actually really simple: did they message me first? 100% of the time they were bots.

The problem is, anyone you message is using the same test, thus deciding that you are a bot. The only logical way to handle this is to ensure you start all messages with “Greetings fellow human, I have perused the photographs of yourself that you put online. Not only are they very attractive – they’re interesting too. You did the right thing putting them up, and it was very brave to do so. I would lime to get to know you better…” That way no-one will be confused.

In the not so distant future just about every site will have AI summarization or QnA as a core part.

Hopefully not, and this ruling goes some way to ensuring sense prevails. It’s a little different if the LLM providing the “AI” summarization has been trained exclusively on the contents of the site; that ensures that only the work of the site authors is used in generating the summary, which means it’s their words, and also probably less likely to hallucinate.

Instead of searching through endless documentation you ask AI to trawl and give you the answer. This is undeniably useful.

I deny it. The results of an LLM being used to answer a question are far too often wrong to ever be trusted. Sometimes the errors are obvious, much more often they are subtle and harder to spot, but delivered with certainty none-the-less. This ruling ensures that the ones providing the LLM summary are held liable, in the same way they would be if a human wrote the same summary.

But if they give the wrong answer once and suddenly become liable, that’s a potential risk.

Correct, and that is as it should be. Apply the same logic to a human written piece and you will see that.

One tiny piece at a time. That what the foot knives are for.

FOR MORE HORSE STORY, INSERT COIN

Oh great, the coin judt scratched my phone screen. You owe me a horse story!

If there’s one layer of clothes then you’re correct, it O(1). On further thought deeper piles are not O(log N), but O(N). Once the number of items exceeds C it takes more than a single operation to retrieve an item from the bottom layer, and the number of operations is proportional to the number of layers, or N/C.

If you consider either picking an item up or moving it aside as a single operation, then retrieval from a single layer take 1 operation, and is O(1), but retrieval from the bottom of a two layer pile actually takes 3 operations (move the top item, retrieve the target item, replace the top item into the bottom layer, or you risk getting a deeper pile in one slot in the pathalogical case). Retrieval from the bottom of 3 layers takes 5 operations (move, move, take, replace, replace). in other words we have an O(1) process for taking the target item, and an O(N/C)=O(N) process for uncovering it in the first place, giving O(N) over all.

Your statement that “considering that the naximum amount of clothes is likely very small, it can be treated as O(1).” is true iff N<=C, which, I concede, is a likely scenario in any well managed laundry pile, hence comment about cache sizing.

Not if items are covered by other items. You’ve got a layer of fast L1 cache that is O(1), but exceed the limit of that layer by placing an item of clothing on top of it, and some elements are effectively “pushed down” to a higher latency tier, which is going to be closer to O(log N) as you have to move some percentage of the items out of the way to get to the target item. Cache eviction (doing the laundry) will reset this.

As always careful optimisation of the cache size, in relation to the expected distribution of items to be accessed, is key to maximising performance.