If you search about it you will find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR_RAp73ra0 She also talked about trans-athletes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU
I have never watch it, and not planning to, so I cannot help you summarize it. Nor have I claimed that she is transphobe, so I don’t feel the need to justify that stand.
If you choose to ignore everything else and focus on this one issue, then I have to admit I don’t know much about it.
I am more and more tempted to donate to EFF every single day.
She has growingly appeal to right wing / corporate rhetorics to attract viewers:
One of her more controversial take is that academia failed because it is “communism”, and we should privatize science to let corperate and youtube viewers to decide who to fund instead of expert commitees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htb_n7ok9AU
They do need to pay developers to get high quality software, which is especially for a message app centered around security.
That is package right? Most people will not get the full benefit of the package, the cash is usually around 150k, plus the cashable part of the package it would be closer to 200k for most.
LLM is very good at programming when there are huge number of guardrails against them. For example, exploit testing is a great usecase because getting a shell is getting a shell.
They kind of acts as a smarter version of infinite monkey that can try and iterate much more efficiently than human does.
On the other hand, in tasks that requires creativity, architecture, and projects without guard rail, they tend to do a terrible job, and often yielding solution that is more convoluted than it needs to be or just plain old incorrect.
I find it is yet another replacement for “pure labor”, where the most unintelligent part of programming, i.e. writing the code, is automated away. While I will still write code from scratch when I am trying to learn, I likely will be able automate some code writing, if I know exactly how to implement it in my head, and I also have access to plenty of testing to gaurentee correctness.
I think on android, signal do not use Google’s push notification. They simple send a dummy push, and the signal app wakes up to retrive the latest message directly from signal server.
So Google never have your notification content. I am not sure if they do the same on iOS.
That being said if your attack model includes people reading your notification lock screen, then you should disable showing signal notification.
Usually, I spend $40 in a buffet, annihilate all their snowcrabs, then spend an hour next day on to toilet until my leg is so numb that I can barely stand.
Do I care? No, because I have made it: I make more than minimum wage now.
Good, I am reading a post that refers to a news article about an academic paper…
If you intend to at least skim through the paper, I am here to save you two clicks: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000972?via=ihub
Codeberg allows private repos: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/first-repository/
Do we know who is that person?
BTW, video also said many are injured, besides “at least” one death.
Sorry, quiet. Fixed in the original comment.
I use 30–40 searches per day, and I almost never need to bang to google. When I do bang to google, I consistently find worse result.
It is indeed expensive compare to most of the other donations/subscription I have, but there is really no alternative to this experience.
I use nebula, lemmy, mastodon, kagi, jellyfin, signal, thunderbird, fedora, tutanota, and so on. My weekly subscription/donation bill is probably around $50, which is just the price of 2 LLM subscription, so honestly, not that much considering how expensive everything is nowadays. But, oh boy, let me tell you, my digital world is quiet: there is nothing in my face pushing AI or ads, and I get every update I need, and can just use my tools and gets things done. All of them cost money/donation, but I would rather spend money to save time and my mental health now…
I don’t think it is terribly expensive, a lot of (somewhat large) domain specific academic instances are maintained by grad students with donation from academics. As far as I know, many of them are in good financial standing.
There are several non-profit had their own instance, like ACM. I recall Mozilla used to do, but I am not sure if they still does.
Then this post should interest you: https://social.growyourown.services/@FediFollows/112419076551165888 :)
And my absolute favorite is @frenchtoast@better.boston
BTW, there is a very strong Boston/Cambridge/Somerville community on mastodon, there is a entire instance for it: https://better.boston/explore
Mayor Wu is on there @wutrain@better.boston but not posting much these days.
There are also many people on other instances, like transport or OSS instance, as many prominent OSS contributor lives in that area.
A lot of these request and code are at least partially reviewed or generated by AI. I think this article is talking about AI generating ads when writing the request, the review, and/or the code.
I doubt any of these ads are trickling down to product as long as the maintainer is mildly careful.
I believe they are higher dimensional string diagrams. Maybe called n-diagrams? They are used in higher homotopy and higher category theory, I believe. But not entirely sure.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.06938
EDIT: Found it! they are called surface diagram, which are generalization of string diagram to 3-categories https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/03/modeling_surface_diagrams.html https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/surface+diagram
Still not sure what the proof is talking about though :(
But from the conclusion it looks like some sort of natruality condition, where the morphisms are slided around except beta.
EDIT AGAIN: got in touch with my string diagram contact. Here is the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.0658
Note the conclusion at the bottom, the proof on the right and the axiom on the left doesn’t seem to be related.
The proof on the right is Theorem 6; the equality at bottom is in section 3.4, where the proof is omitted because “follows from definition”; the axiom on the left is HM1 and HM2 on page 19.