Help

It’s a bit of a stretch calling it a plastic, as it’s not petroleum based from what I’ve read.

It might, possibly, be a viable use case if the LLM produced the summary for an editor, who then confirmed it’s veracity and appropriateness to the article and posted it themselves.

There are certainly better ways, but I suspect this way is cheaper as the only need to stock one connector type.

My kids have a pile of cardboard screws that they use to turn boxes into all sorts of things; rockets, forts, cars and you could probably make organizers, shelves and the like too. The screws grip the cardboard surprisingly well, and it’s easy to make even quite large structures robust.

Could you let me know what sort of models you’re using? Everything I’ve tried has basically been so bad it was quicker and more reliable to to the job myself. Most of the models can barely write boilerplate code accurately and securely, let alone anything even moderately complex.

I’ve tried to get them to analyse code too, and that’s hit and miss at best, even with small programs. I’d have no faith at all that they could handle anything larger; the answers they give would be confident and wrong, which is easy to spot with something small, but much harder to catch with a large, multi process system spread over a network. It’s hard enough for humans, who have actual context, understanding and domain knowledge, to do it well, and I’ve, personally, not seen any evidence that an LLM (which is what I’m assuming you’re referring to) could do anywhere near as well. I don’t doubt that they flag some issues, but without a comprehensive, human, review of the system architecture, implementation and code, you can’t be sure what they’ve missed, and if you’re going to do that anyway, you’ve done the job yourself!

Having said that, I’ve no doubt that things will improve, programming languages have well defined syntaxes and so they should be some of the easiest types of text for an LLM to parse and build a context from. If that can be combined with enough domain knowledge, a description of the deployment environment and a model that’s actually trained for and tuned for code analysis and security auditing, it might be possible to get similar results to humans.

I’m unlikely to do a full code audit, unless something about it doesn’t pass the ‘sniff test’. I will often go over the main code flows, the issue tracker, mailing lists and comments, positive or negative, from users on other forums.

I mean, if you’re not doing that, what are you doing, just installing it and using it??!? Where’s the fun in that? (I mean this at least semi seriously, you learn a lot about the software you’re running if you put in some effort to learn about it)

‘AI’ as we currently know it, is terrible at this sort of task. It’s not capable of understanding the flow of the code in any meaningful way, and tends to raise entirely spurious issues (see the problems the curl author has with being overwhealmed for example). It also wont spot actually malicious code that’s been included with any sort of care, nor would it find intentional behaviour that would be harmful or counterproductive in the particular scenario you want to use the program.

Edit the config was useful if you were trying to hook up a more unusual monitor that had odd timings or more overscan than a normal one, but it was definitely arcane magic.

A valid point, trackers often give you a certain amount of upload credit for free, and there are often other ways to earn those credits too, so all users’ ratios would be above 1.0, but that should have read “A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio of 1.0” if we’re looking at just the data transfer itself.

A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio above 1.0, but it’s a bit of a contrived set up. For simplicity, in the following examples we assume that each file is the same size, but this also works for other combinations.

Consider the smallest group, two users. If user A seeds a file and user B downloads it, whilst B seeds a different file, which A downloads, both users will have a ratio of 1.0 as they’ve up and down loaded the same amount.

For three users, A seeds a file, B and C then download a different half each, which they then share with each other. A has a total (upload, download) of (1,0), whilst B and C have (0.5,1). If you repeat this with B seeding and A and C downloading, then C seeding to A and B, you get each peer uploading 2 files worth of data, and downloading 2 files worth, for a ratio of 1.0 each.

You can keep adding peers and keep the ratios balanced, so it is possible for all the users on a private tracker to have a 1.0 ratio, but it’s very unlikely to work out like that in real life, which is why you have other ways to boost your ratio.

No, you cannot meaningfully delete your posts or comments, but that’s not because of any issue with lemmy, but because you posted them publically. They will be archived and indexed in other services.

It is always best to remember that all your activity here is public, and will be linked to your username. Given that, you may wish to minimise any personally identifying information you post, and use several accounts to split up your activities by topic.

From the rest of the article I very much got the ‘crazy people send crazy message’ message, but I can see how that might depend on the reader.

You say the letter is meaningless, but I think we have to be careful. Sesame Street teaches kindness, inclusivity and caring, and I think the republicans would be only too happy for an excuse to tear it down.

I’ve read the NYT article, and I can’t see anywhere where the author ‘sincerely considers the idea that Rachel Griffin-Accurso, the popular children’s entertainer known as Ms. Rachel, might be financially compensated by Hamas.’ Instead they report that ‘the advocacy group StopAntisemitism’ ‘sent a letter urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether Accurso is receiving funding to further Hamas’s agenda.’

The article as a whole seems pretty positive towards Miss Rachel, and uses her comments to point out how bad things are in Gaza, and insinuates that StopAntisemitism are the problematic ones.

Not a particularly good one…

Fair point, I wasn’t sure it was the equals, hence my initial question. Drawing boxes with the box drawing characters does make a lot more sense.

The #define = line would mean the = would be effectively removed, rendering the for a syntax error. That is, assuming it is an equals sign they’ve redefined, and not similar looking character.

Have they #defined out the equals symbol? I don’t think that for loop is going to compile.

Try writting ‘Deceased’ on it and return it. At the very least it’ll give any human who sees it a momentary pause, and maybe they’ll take it more seriously.

More. Nukes.

Failing that we use those roboroaches they developed a while back to lead the other roaches to live in the crater. They can have that bit. The inevitable plague of supersized mutant cockroaches we’d suffer in a few generations is a problem for later.