I think they vastly underestimate how many things Meta tracks besides ad tracking. They’re likely tracking how long you look at a given post in your feed and will use that to rank similar posts higher. They know your location, what wifi network you’re on and will use that to make assumptions based on others on the same network and/or in the same location. They know what times you’re browsing at and can correlate that with what’s trending in the area at those times, etc.

I have no doubt that their algorithm is biased towards all that crap, but these kinds of investigations need to be more informed in order for them to be useful.

The headline is supposedly CISA urging users to either update or delete Chrome — it’s not Chrome/Google itself. However, I’m having trouble finding the actual CISA alert. It’s not linked in the article as far as I can tell.

Fair enough, and thanks for the offer. I found a demo on YouTube. It does indeed look a lot more reasonable than having an LLM actually write the code.

I’m one of the people that don’t use IntelliSense, so it’s probably not for me, but I can definitely see why people find that particular implementation useful. Thanks for catching and correcting my misunderstanding. :)

I’m closing in on 30 years too, started just around '95, and I have yet to see an LLM spit out anything useful that I would actually feel comfortable committing to a project. Usually you end up having to spend as much time—if not more—double-checking and correcting the LLM’s output as you would writing the code yourself. (Full disclosure: I haven’t tried Copilot, so it’s possible that it’s different from Bard/Gemini, ChatGPT and what-have-you, but I’d be surprised if it was that different.)

Here’s a good example of how an LLM doesn’t really understand code in context and thus finds a “bug” that’s literally mitigated in the line before the one where it spots the potential bug: https://daniel.haxx.se/blog/2024/01/02/the-i-in-llm-stands-for-intelligence/ (see “Exhibit B”, which links to: https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307, which is the actual HackerOne report).

LLMs don’t understand code. It’s literally your “helpful”, non-programmer friend—on stereoids—cobbling together bits and pieces from searches on SO, Reddit, DevShed, etc. and hoping the answer will make you impressed with him. Reading the study from TFA (https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3613904.3642596, §§5.1-5.2 in particular) only cements this position further for me.

And that’s not even touching upon the other issues (like copyright, licensing, etc.) with LLM-generated code that led to NetBSD simply forbidding it in their commit guidelines: https://mastodon.sdf.org/@netbsd/112446618914747900

Edit: Spelling

I wouldn’t trust an LLM to produce any kind of programming answer. If you’re skilled enough to know it’s wrong, then you should do it yourself, if you’re not, then you shouldn’t be using it.

I’ve seen plenty of examples of specific, clear, simple prompts that an LLM absolutely butchered by using libraries, functions, classes, and APIs that don’t exist. Likewise with code analysis where it invented bugs that literally did not exist in the actual code.

LLMs don’t have a holistic understanding of anything—they’re your non-programming, but over-confident, friend that’s trying to convey the results of a Google search on low-level memory management in C++.

That mess of knobs and buttons has been around since the '50s — longer than the more compact '80s synths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_synthesizer Because of their size they are usually considered studio gear and not stage gear, which may also explain why the more compact synths were more visible earlier, because you rarely got to look into studios then compared to now.

To answer your question: A synthesizer (when talking about sound) is an instrument that generates sound by creating waveforms and possibly combining them in different ways to achieve different sounds. Typically they come with filters and envelopes, that further affect the resulting sound.

Vinyl has, AFAIK, been gaining a lot in popularity over the last 20 years. The last few years pressing plants have had trouble keeping up with demand — in part due to supply chain issues, but also because everyone and their grandma wants vinyl pressed.

Yeah, there’s room for improvement. I did say, though, that it probably wasn’t perfect. I’m sure someone more patient than me can come up with a much more effective regex.

Yeah, good points. I did note, though, that it probably wasn’t perfect. I kinda figured it would probably catch other stuff too but I couldn’t think of anything specific at the time.

You can use the regex: /\bx\b/i

It’ll catch ‘x’ surrounded by word boundaries (stuff like spaces, dashes/hyphens, commas, etc.) but not ‘x’ with other letters on either side, so it won’t match e.g. “sax” or “boxer”, but it’ll match “x.com” and “Elon’s X” and stuff. It’s probably not perfect though, so use with caution.

Great. I’m looking forward to hearing all the Apple zealots change their tune on side-loading from "iOS is more secure because it doesn’t allow side-loading " to “side-loading is amazing, I’m so glad Apple invented it!”

It’s most likely resembling NSA code because it’s using EternalBlue which was leaked back in 2017 by ShadowBrokers. The title of the article is misleading/click-baity. (No offense to the OP, I know you just used the title from the article.)

With that little, they may be able to recreate the timbre of someone’s voice, but speech carries a multitude of other identifiers and idiosyncrasies that they’re unlikely to get with that little audio, like personal vocabulary (we don’t choose the same words and phrasings for things), specific pronunciations (e.g. “library” vs “libary”), voice inflections, etc. Obviously, the more training data you have, the better the output.

I keep hearing “exploited in the wild”, but does anyone have anything concrete on it — like, IoCs, PoC, victims … anything?

LMAO. The story will probably be that USB-C was barely being used until Apple wisely decided to start using it and the rest of the world followed suit.

As I said, I skimmed through it and wasn’t sure exactly what I was looking for.

Thanks!

I’ve skimmed through the whole thing, but I’m unsure what you’re referring to. A little help, please?

Literally no one but you has used the word “federated” in his thread of comments… You responded to the original comment about git being decentralized by saying “it’s still 1 centralized server that has the code”. I corrected you, because that’s not how git works, and now I’m not sure what the fuck you’re on about…

Edit: Screenshot, in case you forget.

You’d still have a complete copy of the current HEAD, you’d just be missing a bunch of history depending on the depth at which you cloned.