Not the commenter, but I've used it to create a search engine that filters results containing ads and SEO junk while giving summaries instead of click-bait descriptions
I published it on aisearch.vip (only 1 search is free because I don't want to go bankrupt)
My biggest problem with AI safety is that, simply, the problem they envisage doesn't exist yet (generally, at a minimum, relying on the existence of "AGI"). Hence discussions about it have to make a huge amount of assumptions about a whole range of aspects of what the AI threat will be - what the AI will be capable of, what it's impact will be - before getting on to what possible solutions might be relevant to preventing it. But given the first two are so undefined, the later is pure speculation - one that is difficult to criticise directly, because any specific critisms can usually be easy deflected by adjusting any of the above assumptions without making a substantial change to the "inevitable" conclusion.
That's why it feels like an apocalypse cult to me - it's a conclusion, that has little strong evidence today, stacked on top of a constantly shifting set of assumptions, allowing adherents to avoid backing their arguments with evidence.
For the freseable future the real danger I see from AI is inferior basic statistical models being jammed into production pretending to be some sort of all seeing all knowing AGI - a class of product we are not really that close to.
As are geologists who do “proper geology” research that aids the identification of underground oil wells. Yet it’s still relevant to point out where their funding comes from when it’s an oil company.
Pointing out, maybe. But calling OP an "open source crypto bro" and saying he earn "pyramid scheme money" is too much.
Effectively what should be pointed out is "this guy makes some extremely fundamental crypto libraries that are used by millions of projects out there, including cryptocurrencies". But that's hardly relevant.
I’m pretty sure that’s fully accurate. Filippo mentioned one of his backers is the Interchain Foundation [1], and several others of his backers are at the very least cryptocurrency/web3 adjacent. Note, the GP didn’t say that Filippo is working directly on cryptocurrency - but that the funding is likely (at least in part) coming from cryptocurrency profits.
So, I have recently returned to Python development after several years out. In my first project [1], I was building on an existing library that was already using Poetry - so obviously I went with that for my work. Although it was a bit of a learning curve, I quickly got accustomed to it, but still wondered why it had come about given my recollections of the other tools (virtualenv et al.) being “good enough”.
Then, more recently, I had to run a different project that lacked any documentation as to how I was to run it, had a setup.py file, a Pipfile, and more in it. In trying to get this to run, I managed to make a real pigs ear such that (no doubt thanks to my lack of experience with those tools) I eventually had to delete all my virtual environments, as none of them worked anymore…
So yes, I am 100% in the “one tool to rule them all” camp these days - and although PDM does look promising, right now it isn’t offering me anything above Poetry that I care that strongly about.
As far as I know, it’s only believed that the attackers have the encrypted vaults of LastPass users.
However, that does mean they can attempt to “brute force” the encryption, trying any number of passwords as often as they like - and it seems some earlier versions of LastPass used rather poor choices with that cryptography, meaning the amount of effort needed to make an attempt is lower than other similar services (plus some users may have rather poor master passwords, making them easier to guess).
Which is why it's strange to hear Steve Gibson so breathlessly defending LastPass, claiming secrets aren't really at risk. It's like he read some white papers, met some LP employees, and decided it's unhackable.
Consider that many users may have had very guessable vault passwords, and encryption generally gets weaker as hardware and techniques advance.
But there’s also a difference between “secure” and “confidential”.
Many definitions of security include integrity and availability as a properties to protect - and storing data in multiple locations can definitely help protect both of those.
If you think of safety as defence against accidents and security as defence against attacks, there's a large natural overlap simply because "deliberately cause an accident" is the most obvious family of strategies for an attacker.
That said, this distinction between safety and security, between accident and attack, often gets lost in this sort of discussion, and for this particular thread, highlighting the difference, and how the two are sometimes at odds with each other, was more important than highlighting the overlap.
I understand your opinion about affiliate links - but I use several review websites that use such links for all products they review, and have both positive and negative reviews for products. So I wouldn’t say it necessarily follows that affiliate links = biased reviews.
How often do they give their best review score or opinion to a product without an affiliate link? Not every product will have an accessible affiliate link.
Isn’t Amazon commonly used for most affiliate links or has that changed in recent years? Amazon isn’t the cheapest all the time any more. Nor is its customer support the top any more
Also, I've noticed that the list of products reviewed is limited to only those that _have_ Amazon affiliate links. If a product is only available on not-Amazon stores, they don't even get mentioned. Which is a bias in itself.
In practice, when dealing with US auditors and infosec chiefs, saying that "Some researches/guidelines say X is not necessary" will not compel anyone to change because "This is always been this way, and it doesn't _hurt_". The conversation becomes categorically different if you say "The White House says X is not allowed anywhere."
King of Tokyo (and it’s sequel, King of New York) were rather popular gateway/filler games (i.e., getting people into board gaming or as a quick game before/between/after a big game) for a while. Nothing comparable to the success of Magic though.
