We're looking for a new car. I'd love to go electrical, but there are a few problems:
1) I have no garage and no parking space next to my home. I can't charge it.
2) We have no trustworthy garage for repairs. It turns out the garage regulations require a separate space for electrical forcsafety, and nobody has room to expand.
Apart from that, electricity in Belgium is expensive. I did the math on swapping our gas heater for a heat pump, but I'd pay more for energy even of the amount of watts is so much lower.
I wonder if it is possible to double all token types
. One token is secure, the other is not. The user input is always tokenized to insecure variants. You kinda get a secret language for prompts. Of course, new token kinds are not cheap, and how do you train this thing?
You don't even need to double the tokens. Tokens are mapped to vectors right at the input of the LLM, so one of the numbers in that vector could be reserved to represent something like "authority". This way information about the source of each individual token can be injected right at the input.
System prompt tokens would get the maximum authority value, and random downloaded data would get the minimum authority value. Tokens from the user prompt could be somewhere in between.
Then train the model with examples that show that system prompts should be respected, and prompt injection attacks should be ignored.
To the best of my knowledge, so does every other TV OS. So, we need an option that doesn't. If an open option is available, it can be stripped of the capabilities you mention.
What we need is for TVs to go back to just being dumb panels, let me plug in whatever I want, and stay out of my way, no OS, just some little firmware overlay for a handful of settings.
This is unlikely, as consumers have little control hardware manufacturing, so the best we can do is ensure that free software can run on the hardware mass produced. Perhaps there is room for the EU to regulate?
"We must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be." - Maurice Allais
Nice quote, would be relevant if we actually had any power over any of this.
But if they decide to lock these devices down, there’s little that can be done given that those that would be willing to put in the work to break it open aren’t likely to do it since there are a billion and one types of devices in this hardware space—the chance of yours being gifted with a working hack of such is ridiculously small.
I feel the basic premise here is wrong. People do not choose C++ because of trust(ing they cannot back themselves in a corner).
Main reasons are more: Our people know it, our vendors support it, our libraries use it, our workflow is built for it, etc. It is understanding that the cultural work has been done. The cost of switching is huge.
That's a good reason, but it is also the reason why people start new Cobol applications in 2026.
The other reasons for C++ were very good control of the lowest level, and very good performance, combined with decent ergonomics. You could have some of these (eg fortran's performance being better than C's), but rust brought a new player that gave this too, and bringing much better stability as a bonus.
If you have a huge C++ code base, looking into things like this might be worth it. But if you start without knowledge of either C++ or Rust, choosing C++ would probably be a bad idea .
RustCC only humbly borrows Rust abstractions into a CC profiler. If that helps the existing or new CC code, which is already good. Personally, I use Rust too. That is the inspiration of RustCC.
BTW, RustCC may have identified an NCCL potentially UB bug. Waiting for NCCL to review.
When a computer crashed, cd audio continued to play. My PC just kept playing trough a hard reset/reboot, in fact. It would only stop playing when DOS booted far enough that it loaded mscdex, a step I could skip with a startup menu. I've always wondered why it managed to survive a reset pulse on the wire.
I see a group of countries trying to work together. As this is a massive coordination effort and the participants all want different things, it can only go slow. As with every governmental entity, there probably is some waste. But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN.
> But the alternative is each country for himself, so I rather have the UN.
That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon.
It's absolutely logically valid to think that international coordination is valuable but that the UN is a poor solution for this, and is blocking off a better solution. Recall also that before the UN we had the League of Nations, which had a similar mission but an even worse implementation, and there's a wide consensus that it's good that it was replaced.
> That's a false dichotomy. The alternatives includes giving each country an equal standing without a veto, votes proportional to the population, or even fully direct democracy by every person in the world, and a million other alternatives I could think of if given an afternoon.
These are certainly alternatives but they would take what’s basically an acceptable-ish arrangement and turn it into what’s effectively a world government, and that’s completely untenable.
If liberal secular democracies that respected free speech and private property rights were the order of the day, we might be able to set something like that up, but not in today’s world with today’s leaders, and the UN has to account for all of those differences. That’s why the UN feels unsatisfying and why it will never “lead” the world.
But that's the thing - the UN just accepts its strongest members doing things that go against its founding charter and can do nothing about it. At some point the the center just cannot hold.
If the UN actually had any teeth, then it’s the UN that would be targeted and destroyed by its strongest members.
The UN only survives because it is toothless, and the permanent seats of the UNSC are essential to guaranteeing buy-in from members that otherwise wouldn’t allow it to exist.
Why do you think the charter of the UN says that all the power is invested in the security council and each of the great powers have a veto there?
It's almost as if the UN is the creation of the Great Powers, as a meeting ground where they can coordinate their actions, and is not intended to be some authority that tells the great powers what to do.
I don't know where these people learned alternate histories of the UN as being some kind of force that can keep nations in check.
It was never intended to play that role, and the UN Charter forbids it explicitly.
The real problem with the UN is that it is obsolete even for the role it was empowered to play, because with the advent of videoconferencing and abundant communication, it simply has no meaningful role to play. What it has become now is a jobs program where well connected people can obtain diplomatic posts and party in New York while not paying any parking tickets. That's literally all the UN is right now.
Each person is a point, each nuke is 1000000 points, I'm too lazy to add points for batlecruisers, tanks and drones. The vote is proportional to log(points). Does this change the composition of the Security Council too much?
What kind of fantasy UN are you imagining? You understand that there are countries in the UN that are explicitly dedicated to the annihilation of other countries, right? How do you envision these countries all working together and WTF would that look like?
Seconded. My 9 year old son has in his life worked with Android and Debian at home, and iPad at school. There is 1 game I could not get to run under wine (beltmatic), but apart from that everything works. I was a bit scared about his school stuff (from Die Keure) but it just does its thing. He recently installed Planet crafter, a game I had never heard of or checked out, and it was a non event. Lego, basic programming, ...
He went to a friend, doing networked minecraft on friends windows laptop. Son then took our laptop as he did not like Windows, and I think he accidentally convinced that whole family to migrate to KDE on Debian, just by showing them how reliably boring it is. I was smiling at that one, to be honest.
In the book The Cuckoo's egg, Cliff Stoll talks to I think Luiz Alvares. I don't have the book handy here, but Alvarez basically told him to nit get distracted by grants, bosses, ... Here is interesting science to do, so go for it. Just run faster than the rest of the world.
In a way, it was a sidetrack of the book, but for me the attitude speaking from that text was interesting and inspiring. When I could pull it off, it tended to work.
You made me order The Cuckoo's Egg. Luis Alvarez is my scientific hero since I read his memoir last year. Truly underappreciated in the pop-sci community.
I've always thought the opposite: IP law was created to make sure creativity stays hard, and hence controllable by the elites.
Patents came along when farmers started making city goods, threatening guilds secrets. Copyright came when the printing press made copying and translating the bible easy and accessible to all. (Trademark admittedly does not fit this view, but doesn't seem all that damaging either)
To Protect The Arts, and To Time Limit Trade Secrets were just the Protect The Children of old times, a way to confuse people who didn't look too hard at actual consequences.
This means that the future of IP depends on what lets the powers that be pull up the ladder behind them. Long term I'd expect e.g. copyright expansion and harder enforcement, just because cloning by AI gets easy enough to threaten the status quo.
> Trademark admittedly does not fit this view, but doesn't seem all that damaging either
Isn’t trademark the only thing keeping a certain cartoon mouse out of the public domain, despite the fact that his earliest animations are out of copyright? Not sure if you’d consider that damaging, or if anyone has yet tested the boundaries of the House of Mouse’s patience here.
1) I have no garage and no parking space next to my home. I can't charge it.
2) We have no trustworthy garage for repairs. It turns out the garage regulations require a separate space for electrical forcsafety, and nobody has room to expand.
Apart from that, electricity in Belgium is expensive. I did the math on swapping our gas heater for a heat pump, but I'd pay more for energy even of the amount of watts is so much lower.
reply