What's the problem exactly? Could you not follow the example in the text?
The standard text to build understanding in physics is University Physics by Sears & Zemansky.
It's worth remembering you're quite far from the ground in physics, and it's mostly taught with "neat" cases that give insight into physics. I.e. the thought experiment to show why kinetic energy must scale quadratically with velocity is carefully designed to show that conclusion. You shouldn't expect to have come up with it off the cuff.
> So if my theorem is correct, and Quake gutted id Software, was it worth it? Well I'd say yes absolutely. Games are more important than game companies, and Quake is an iconic titan of the gaming world.
Wonder if this means just publishing vulnerablities without contact with curl team would be responsible (you have no other path to tell vulnerable users)
I think I'd personally develop a minimal patch and then publically disclose.
I'm not sure it's be reasonable to leave an actively exploited critical bug until August. Nor would I be too interested in playing middle man or paying for support from curl to get it out.
Reminder that what you're describing is "coordinated disclosure", and that there are in fact plenty of people who consider "full disclosure" to be preferable in some or all cases.
Why not? Only a tiny fraction of curl user get it from the upstream website/repo. Most users get curl/libcurl from their OS/application vendor or package manager, all of them having their own maintainers. There is no reason a temporary patch couldn't be produced by them in the meantime.
Why are you interpreting clear communication of a window of downtime with 2 weeks notice as a "lack of cooperation"? That's what cooperation looks like. It's not explicit but my read was that they're not even taking a vacation - they're just doing the rest of their job, a lot of which is probably going to be shipping fixes for vulnerabilities that are already triaged.
There are no "rules" for responsible disclosure. We have guidelines that we have broadly accepted, but at the end of the day whether or not you discussed responsibly is in the opinion of your peers.
There's no such thing as "responsible disclosure on a technicality". Don't be a dick, and work in good faith to keep users safe.
> the White House intends to generally regulate Mythos-class models (whatever exactly that means)
This is not at all surprising. And I hope people don't make the mistake that it's a "this administration" problem.
It was obviously from the early days of these LLMs that the shoe was going to drop and we (as Joe public) would not retain access. I mean that once ChatGPT3 dropped it was clear there was some level of functionality at which we would be denied further access.
The only carve out will be as per older technical innovations the US is more concerned with foreign national access than US citizen access at home.
I don't remember the details with encryption but it was basically you have to ship a breakable version for the rest of the world, and you generally sometimes ship a backdoored version.
And Anthropic is more concerned by what they are asked to do to US citizens than the broader group.
Same story with encryption, CPUs, GPUs, blah blah blah.
Yet unlike CPUs/GPUs, there's currently zero way to lock down who has access.
Giving access to 'citizens', with the current way the Internet operates, is absurd. One back door into a desktop, workstation, and 'validated citizens' are now 'hackers from where-ever'.
> I don't remember the details with encryption but it was basically you have to ship a breakable version for the rest of the world, and you generally sometimes ship a backdoored version.
I do remember the details: the result of Bernstein v. United States was that you have a First Amendment right to publish code because it is a speech act and so the USGOV cannot prevent you from publishing effective encryption algorithms. Will model weights be afforded the same protection? What about serving a model without publishing its weights? We shall see.
It feels like there is precisely enough information to deduce each step. But only just enough miss one clue and you have something on upside down on step 7 that you won't notice until step 37.
I feel whoever makes them could probably make a wicked NY Times Crossword puzzle.
It may not be an abstraction of a real machine. But the C abstract machine is very close to the foundational idea of how a computer work. And it’s quite easy to bootstrap.
Importantly my work involves me often being able to look at C and think about the assembly and back and I regularly work on ESP32, ch42(riscv) and atmega avr8.
I couldn't do that with mciropython on any platform.
they're technically not wrong. C is literally an "abstraction" of the machine. As we know, the whole point of an abstraction is to ignore the multitude of details :-)
That's always a possibility but I've seen my Grandpa die of a broken heart after my Grandma died. The night of her funeral he asked his children if they thought someone could die of a broken heart and after that it took him less than a year to go himself. I'd never considered that saying to be true until then but I watched it happen.
"It usually appears after a significant stressor, either physical or emotional; when caused by the latter, the condition is sometimes called broken heart syndrome"
Don't know the details, didn't read the comic, and don't really have a personal interest on the history so what follows is just general speculation. She looked depressed enough to commit suicide. Is a fact also that people that orbit around drugs, tend to die younger, by suicide or by the effects of the drugs.
In any case if two relatively young people die in a short interval of time would be wise to look for environmental effects. Oil pigments have chemicals, and some colors were removed for being notoriously unsafe. Going further, slow poisoning to eliminate opponents with the benefits of plausible deniability is trendy among some criminals unfortunately. If somebody "dies of grief", research for discarding a hidden toxic should be started, just to be safe.
The standard text to build understanding in physics is University Physics by Sears & Zemansky.
It's worth remembering you're quite far from the ground in physics, and it's mostly taught with "neat" cases that give insight into physics. I.e. the thought experiment to show why kinetic energy must scale quadratically with velocity is carefully designed to show that conclusion. You shouldn't expect to have come up with it off the cuff.
reply