This is why you use uBlock Origin.

I wish it would just say "k, updated xyz to 1.2.3 in Cargo.toml" instead of the entire pages it likes to output. I don't want to read all of that!

I used to feel the same but you can just prompt it to reply with only one word when its done. Most people prefer it to summarize because its easier to track so ig thats the natural default

By scanning downloaded binaries for known viruses?

A text command pasted into the terminal isn't a binary.

Convincing a Linux user to paste rm -rf / into the terminal is not malware. It's social engineering.

Scanning binaries for known malware is already built into the OS.

Endpoint security software on the Mac, if it's worth the hit to system resources that is, inspect every call to exec and fork that occur in the kernel and also inspect those for known attack vectors, malicious scripts, etc. The one I have installed on my work Mac will kill reverse shell attempts before they are run. Will stop keychain attacks. Infostealing (as they can also get every file system op as they are happening in the kernel).

Gatekeeper and Xprotect are good, but there's only so much they can do.

Which do you use/recommend?

Antivirus programs will run on PowerShell scripts, VBScript files, JScript files, and all other kinds of automation on Windows.

The screenshots from the article clearly show a permission prompt for a program. Whether that's a binary or a shell script or something else doesn't matter, the infection stage should've been caught by anti malware rather than permission prompts.

Windows Defender does this already. If Apple's AV can't catch this, I think they may be relying on their DRM-as-a-security-measure (signatures, notarisation, etc.) a bit too much.

> Scanning binaries for known malware is already built into the OS.

Clearly it isn't. XProtect is a joke. It's 2004-era ClamAV level of protection.

The article specifically mentions that the methodology here is to trick users into running an obfuscated CLI command…that downloads and runs a binary

Terminal commands have the ability to do dangerous things, like deleting all the user's files.

In this case, the user is warned that the command wants to do something dangerous and must manually allow or deny the action.

You can simply ask the model to point out if there are any problems and then fix them yourself. You don't have to copy and paste its output into your book. You can also pay for an actual copyeditor to edit your book.

You can also edit it yourself and then ask a friend, relative, or colleague to read the parts you are struggling with improving. "Does this sentence flow? Is there a better way to say this? Is this confusing?"

If you're going to sink time into writing a book, it's worth spending some time editing it so your message gets through clearly. But that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

This has happened multiple times [0]. You shouldn't put your money into Polymarket

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/1jki1lj/pol...

I can second this, after finishing my intro Japanese classes I was able to parse the grammar of most sentences. Memorizing vocab was the hard part, so I used OCR on manga pages and then Yomitan to hover over and see word definitions (in English).

Most existing mainstream languages aren’t expressive enough to encode these invariants. For languages outside of the mainstream, Lean 4 is a language supporting verification, and it’s also a full programming language, so you can write your proofs/theorems in the same language that you program in.

What's an invariant you can not encode in a general purpose programming language?

I'd have assumed, by virtue of being Turing complete, you could express any invariant in almost any language?

In most languages you can express any invariant, sure, but you can't prove that the invariant is upheld unless you run the program.

For example a NonNegativeInteger type in most languages would just have a constructor that raises an exception if provided with a negative number. But in languages with proofs, the compiler can prevent you from constructing values of this type at all unless you have a corresponding proof that the value can't be negative (for example, the value is a result of squaring a real number).

Not really. Here’s a comparison of different languages: https://notes.eatonphil.com/parser-generators-vs-handwritten...

Most roll their own for three reasons: performance, context, and error handling. Bison/Menhir et al. are easy to write a grammar and get started with, but in exchange you get less flexibility overall. It becomes difficult to handle context-sensitive parts, do error recovery, and give the user meaningful errors that describe exactly what’s wrong. Usually if there’s a small syntax error we want to try to tell the user how to fix it instead of just producing “Syntax error”, and that requires being able to fix the input and keep parsing.

Menhir has a new mode where the parser is driven externally; this allows your code to drive the entire thing, which requires a lot more machinery than fire-and-forget but also affords you more flexibility.

If you're parsing a new language that you're trying to define, I do recommend using a parser generator to check your grammar, even if your "real" parser is handwritten for good reasons. A parser generator will insist on your grammar being unambiguous, or at least tell you where it is ambiguous. Without this sanity check, your unconstrained handwritten parser is almost guaranteed to not actually parse the language you think it parses.

He was bought out by private equity.[0] That’s why the channel is different now.

[0] https://www.electrify.video/post/electrify-completes-majorit...

This explains why i have been finding his recent videos somewhat disjointed/disorganized and titles click-baity. The quality of the content has most certainly gone down.

Yeah, that would explain it.

3blue1brown has great math visualizations. I find the top 10% of YouTube videos are worth the time over reading, and the bottom 90% are comparable or slower. Those are also nice though because you can put them on while doing other stuff, like eating or doing the laundry.