Please stop trolling, Elon.

Media is reporting that most casualties are caused by the pager detonating while driving. Obviously because it would impact other drivers that happen to be around the now incapacitated driver.

Also in the anniversary of WWII hero Folke Bernadotte assassination by Zionists. See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-...

<https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-september-17-2024/>

The BSDs were burned by this in the 4.4BSD days.[1] It makes sense that they don’t want to be burned again.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc.....

The most advanced tools were template based generators and real-time static checkers plus language servers. AI makes things way more complicated than it is.

It's not only bleed of GPL into MIT. It's also bleeding of source-available licensed corpus to AI models. These things leak their training data like crazy. Ask the right question and get functions from training sets verbatim.

When everything is combined, this is a huge problem. It's not that these problems are individually OK. They're huge already. The resulting problem is a sum of huge problems.

I doubt this genericism applies to codebases the like of the *BSD's, or the linux kernel.

There are GPL projects which provide people their livelihoods, because they get grants to develop that code with a GPL license. Ingesting the same code to a model sans it’s license not only infringes on the license, but allows this code to seep to places where it shouldn’t (by design), and puts this man’s livelihood in jeopardy.

Companies frowned upon GPL for years because of its liability, and now they can feast over this code with these models.

Same is for source available repositories. These companies put their code out for eyes only, not for reproduction and introduction to other code bases. These systems also infringe on these licenses, and attacking to the business models of these companies.

I’m not a copyright stickler. I just respect people and their choices they made with their code.

P.S.: I can share the tweets of that researcher if you want.

It is CC-BY-SA so it requires attribution (+ share alike).[1] That is the hard part with code written by LLMs.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing

Update: SA 4.0 accepts GPLv3 as compatible, and I use GPLv3 exclusively. I'm on clear.

LLMs neither know provenance nor licenses about the things they generate, you're right. I think that part of the problem is ignored not just because it's hard, but it's convenient to ignore, too.

I also think SO is different about mindless copy-pasting. Outside of rote beginner stuff it’s infrequent that someone has the exact same question as you, and that the best answer works by simple copy-pasting. Often the modification is simple enough that even GPT can do it :) But making sure the SO question is relevant, and modifying the answer accordingly, is a check on understanding that LLMs don’t really have. In particular, a SO answer might be “wildly wrong” syntactically but essentially correct semantically. LLMs can give you the exact opposite problem.

> DENSE_RANK() OVER (ORDER BY TotalMark DESC) AS StudRank

And then I filled in my column names and alias. This is 90% of what is happening with LLMs / SO copying. Copy / paste of syntax like this absolutely does not need a link or attribution and is in no way copyrightable in the first place.

Case in point: https://x.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554

This is not akin to copying a 2-line trick from SO.

On the other hand, the most significant part of code I copied from SO was using two iostream iterators to automatically tokenize an incoming string. 5-6 lines at most.

This block has a 10+ line comment on top of it not only explaining how it works, but it has a link to the original answer at SO.

... doesn't say automatic copying.

Frustratingly, the study focuses too heavily on GDP per capita and largely overlooks the devastating effects of nationalism and religion. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46581-5

Kind of just sounds like a romanticized justification for modern western imperialism.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I understand it as the West believes it's the objective truth that the people want freedom among other things, and no references to the contrary are truthful. So when China says the West pushes their values down the throat, West shrugs and notes that 1) liberty is needed 2) there's no (enough) liberty in China - and that's enough to continue to push the values. Or, in other words - China, accept that the freedom is important, change the behavior accordingly - and West will stop insisting on deficiencies in this area.

So, ideas. They are hard to resist, other than by the other ideas. So far those other ideas are national traditions, which are doubtful on the surface, as it seems all nations reaching democracy mostly don't want to come back. Here the West receives the confirmation of its point of view, and the approach remains.

Coming from the county with the highest incarceration rate, that's rich.

No it isn’t. The US has serious problems but if I had to choose between being in the most vulnerable group in the worst part of the USA or a Uyghur in Xinjiang I would choose the USA. What the CCP is doing in Xinjiang to the Uyghur people is genocide of the most evil degree and without equivocation.

What I'd like to bring into discussion is: in the USA there's a visible cohort of people being marginalised and sent into a life of despair because of policies, ideologies, cultural aspects that really shouldn't be happening in the richest country on Earth. Homelessness to the level some rich cities in the USA experience, coupled with drug addiction which is then treated as a criminal issue resulting often in imprisonment, further marginalising people into a spiral of despair.

Those are also evil actions, due to inaction, policy, cultural aspects, it's layered evil to not look so evil but not fixing some social issues that put people into misery and despair, letting them slowly die on their own because of an ideology where those are seen as being useless to society is also quite evil, in a very different way than the CCP, it's indirect, it's not the State directly harming those people but through inaction letting them to wilt and slowly die.

I'm not saying, at all, that those are equivalent, at the same time is befuddling that the wealthiest nation on Earth is, in its majority, ok with allowing it to happen to the unfortunate ones. It's a different kind of evil but evil nonetheless.

This is important but not in this context. When the global stakes are cultural oblivion, genocide, and the destruction of entire nations, focusing on American homelessness or incarceration is at best cultural narcissism but more often than not it’s also equivocation and sometimes even apologetics for genocidal regimes.

Just because China is doing terrible things doesn't somehow make US problems any less severe.

Note that I am not saying that Chinese or Soviet leadership would have been any better, but at least please acknowledge that it's not as simple as "us good, them bad", and that people denouncing imperialsim do not do it out of self-hate for the west or whatever.

For example, references to historical events gradually lose sense, as in a distant past human behavior was different - i.e., Roman republic or China kingdoms were even ideologically very different from modern countries, or e.g. Denmark was very different from today's state. Times change in a sense that some people's values change, behaviors change and it makes less and less sense to construct intersocietal relationships on the events of the distant past. What's more justifiable is to consider the current state of affairs.

For example, in 2001 Russia was helping USA to put a pressure on Afghan bases of jihadists, and today such a behavior is probably impossible, given that Taliban is welcomed in the Kremlin - so it's reasonable for US to change the stance toward Russia in relation to this state.

As for e.g. South America, the Western approach gradually changed from "colonial" - where various resources were extracted and the society was pushed towards leaders convenient the West - towards "collaborational", where West has laws and habits regulating relations with foreign countries, which, for example, have penalties for bribes.

The society changed enough so that after the war started in Ukraine a lot of Western companies left Russia - just because the population in markets more important to those companies, and that population doesn't in general approve the Russian actions.

So, yes, the West isn't perfect, and efforts should continue to improve it. At the same time West provides a compelling demonstration of success in important areas of life, which could be useful to other countries.

The argument is that the west ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. This has nothing to do with other countries being better or relative correctness of values etc.

It's actually every country, not only West, which ought not to do colonialism or imperialism. And West does a fair share of efforts here.

It would also improve collaboration if we were to formally acknowledge and apologize for our past actions and maybe even try to make up for them. And while we do less of it now the US still does support have some colonialist tendencies that make us look less credible and huts both the people we're oppressing and our reputation elsewhere.

Nobody complaining about western imperialism supports those things either, and the focus is on western ones because they presumably live in a western country and have more influence there than elsewhere. Its also a fair critism that the west is more hypocritical given its big talk about freedoms and liberties just for it to install dictators whenever it's politically profitable.

I’m just saying as someone against strong armed empire building, arguments that ignore the increasing imperialism of certain countries in order to decry the historical and waning imperialism of others feels not like an argument with imperialism but more like picking sides in a team sport.

as someone against imperialistic takeovers that does anger me.

it’s pretty much always focused on western imperialism in vague terms. Chinese and Russian are on an imperialistic rise of late, but those that decry western imperialism seem to ignore those. But yes there are posts that overly index on the Chinese or Russian imperialism as well.

conversely The ones that actually do decry Chinese or Russian imperialism usually give western actions more of a pass.

Sure there’s some exceptions, but the typical posts are always overly fixated on one flavor, and it really gives the impression that it’s not imperialism that’s being object to, but rather the team doing it.

What is rare is any post that seems to be honestly against all of that type of behavior, not tied to their team.

Because so much of what we're saying is relative to what seems like the status quo. I assume at least a good bit of the Anti-Western-Imperialism group see the status quo as being anti china and anti russia and see it as unfair that the US gets a pass. This seems (to me) like a fairly common take in democrat spaces, so hearing such a big deal (correctly imo) made out of Ukraine but then nothing about our own support of colonialism elsewhere is frustrating and seems like it needs the record corrected. This is the take I see the most, personally. Or maybe its equally common but I notice it more because the takes of 'America should stop doing colonialism' feel inoffensive and 'America is fine, focus on what Russia is doing' are more annoying to me personally, coming in with the assumption that we all already agree that Russia sucks so it feels like a distraction.

And I assume conservative spaces which I know less about take it for granted that the other side hates America and wants to hammer home that other countries suck as well. So I can imagine if that was your assumption then the other type of comment would be more annoying and stick out more.

Which seems to be the general way arguments with strangers all suck- nobody knows nearly enough of the context to actually figure out what anyone is trying to say with any nuance. Like, if I call radiohead overrated that means wildly different things based on how much you assume other people like radiohead etc.

Anyways, it's pretty rare for a comment to come out and say "I support imperialism" which shrimp_emoji was doing here and that's why I jumped in to comment, because what an awful take that is. Totally agreed that people supporting only one side as a 'team' thing is awful too. In this specific instance, I don't think that's what thrance was saying and tbh it was what I originally thought your first comment in the thread was going for, actually.

That could just be my impression, but western imperialism so like Ireland? Iceland? Greece?

I don’t think I’ve ever heard “eastern imperialism” to talk about China or Russia.

To me, "western" imperialism includes older stuff like the British and Spanish colonies etc. and is a nice one word phrase rather than listing each specific country. In modern times it is really mostly just America so that would be the better term for talking about it, you're right. I think me and maybe others tend to kinda lump all of the NATO countries together as one unit since usually there's not usually big disagreements and other countries do participate some, like the other NATO counties that sent troops for the Global War on Terror.

You're right, I haven't heard the term eastern imperialism, but I have heard the term "evil empire" to describe Russia specifically.

I want to reiterate that I believe that while there is certainly some, I find the group that is anti-US conquest and ambivalent to Russian conquest somewhat relevant and awful, and the group that is anti-US conquest and pro-Russia conquest tiny enough in America to be basically non-existent. The pro-US conquest group is big enough that there are still lots of people (in my experience) that support Kissenger, the global war on terror, etc. especially in government. I totally agree that this is not a productive debate angle though because I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other what the 'general opinion' is. And frankly I don't really care because we already agree on all the important parts

Also I don't think colonialism/imperialism has ever lead to anything particularly good for the subjugated people. If anything, it's emancipation from the oppressor rather than its influence that allowed for better living condition for the common man.

Historical grudges can be justified in the sense that oftentimes the scars of exploitation may last for decades, and the west refusing to even acknowledge their wrong doing is damning for its image in the eyes of the South.

On wikipedia:

> Although the varnas and jatis have pre-modern origins, the caste system as it exists today is the result of developments during the post-Mughal period and the British colonial period, which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Section "History", subsection "During British rule" of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

The central tenet of anti-imperialism is that everything good was despite imperialism, and all bad things because of it. This is a classic "heads I win, tails you lose" argument.

> which made caste organisation a central mechanism of administration.

Hmmm.. that article goes against everything I've read before. Yea, the British adapted to the caste system that was in place, but to blame it on the British rule seems very strange.

> Also I think you'll have to review your understanding of the history of slavery.

I was only talking about one specific thing, namely the destruction of the atlantic slave trade by the British Empire (at great cost to them btw). You just ignoring that and then hand waving isn't even close to an argument or even coherent.

> Your rationalization of imperialism is kind of weird.

I'm not rationalizing it. I'm saying the blanket "Imperialism is to blame for everything bad" is overly simplistic at best. The Monty Python sketch exemplified by "what did the romans ever do for us?" shows the madness quite clearly.

The Roman Empire was corrupt, stupid, and culturally imperialist. Sure. But the collapse brought the Dark Ages.

I think also that ethnic cleansings of nations is a bad thing. You might disagree. That's fine. But the ethnic cleansing of muslims from India into the division of India into (eventually) India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, that's a historical fact. As are the dark ages mentioned above.

We have to see the good of empires as well as the bad. Only by seeing clearly the problems and advantages can we make improvements to the world.

It should be possible to intervene to prevent genocides without then grabbing the region's natural resources and putting in place a despotic leadership.

Also, just on a side-note, if I'm not mistaken, Rome did not simply occupy conquered territories, it assimilated them and gave citizenship to the conquered people (those who were free at least). Imperialism is often described as beginning around the 18th century.

Yea, because otherwise it might include the Roman Empire ;)

There are dozens of illiberal dictators installed by/allied to the US to gain access to natural resources and cheap labor: https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/dictatrs.htm

Frankly, I'm a little disturbed by your comment.

On the other hand, look at what happened to North Korea after the US abandoned it. Not a pretty picture. South Korea is the victim of US imperialism, while the North is not.

"Almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed as a result.[369][370] The war's highest-ranking U.S. POW, Major General William F. Dean,[371] reported that the majority of North Korean cities and villages he saw were either rubble or snow-covered wasteland.[372][373] North Korean factories, schools, hospitals, and government offices were forced to move underground, and air defenses were "non-existent".[374] North Korea ranks as among the most heavily bombed countries in history,[375] and the U.S. dropped a total of 635,000 tons of bombs (including 32,557 tons of napalm) on Korea, more than during the entire Pacific War."

I cannot imagine how a functional democracy was ever expected to emerge from this

It's certainly a result of communism/Juche, and the war saved half the country from it. South Koreas massive growth and success since then is easily seen from satellite images.

The first ruler of South Korea after the war, Syngman Rhee, was not known for his respect of democratic processes, and had the approval of the US. He maintained an authoritarian regime and didn't contribute much to the country's economic growth.

South Korea's economic success happened in spite of American imperialism, not because of it.

Imperialism as an ideology is evil, no matter who is the oppressor.

Tails I win, heads you lose. Classic.

I very much agree with this.

> What's not to like about some corrupt autocracy somewhere becoming part of the freest and most prosperous country in the world?

This not so much. The success of the United States has been, in part, due to avoiding overannexation. Culture and politics can change, but geography cannot. Mexico, for example, has terrible unproductive geography. Economics drives a lot of politics. Annexing countries like that would be a net burden. Their trafficking and other crime problems are not a matter of culture. The tail does not wag the dog. You can't politic the earth into submission but many will try.

It can be argued the United States already has this problem with some of its states, but their proximity and lack of natural borders requires them to be assimilated. Manifest destiny was a carefully considered thing and not as stupid and reckless as some people want you to believe.

A significant cause of the rise of the populist right in the West (e.g., Donald Trump/MAGA in the United States, Brexit in Britain, various European right-wingers such as Marine Le Pen and Viktor Orban) is the economic woes faced by people who have been left behind. Think of the hollowing out of industrial and rural America, for example, and how this has reduced economic opportunities for the people living in these areas. Unfortunately, these economic concerns have been eclipsed by "culture war" matters, with a strong belief that the values of prosperous urban areas in the West are at odds with the values of less-urban parts of the West. If urban areas are becoming more internationalist, then rural areas are becoming more nationalist. Some of these populist right-wingers have an authoritarian bent; to quote the OP, the rise of the populist right definitely consists of examples of "cultures respond[ing] to perceived existential threats by rallying around authoritarian leaders, implementing stricter regulations."

Even if that's the case, it's important to note: those matters are not manufactured by the ultra-wealthy.

> If we're too busy arguing over trans kids or abortion or whatever we can't fix the fundamental problems that are letting these greedy people extract our wealth and take advantage of our labor.

But personally, I think the "culture war" is mainly the result of the self-undermining tendencies of urban liberalism. It can't do anything about the ultra-wealthy because, while it can identify them as a problem, it simultaneously pushes dis-unifying cultural changes that prevent action on it.

And I'm not even sure how long it will keep identifying the ultra-wealthy as a problem, given how its losing the working classes (e.g. working class whites swung to Trump in 2016, and now working class minorities are starting to swing the same way).

I'm not sure you can say that nationalism isn't an economic concern. If the jobs went overseas, then nationalism (putting your own country first), or at least economic nationalism, makes perfect sense as a response.

People interacting with the same systems we do tend to be more aligned, but as you’re calling out a large portion of the populations feel insecure and are lashing out - and going even harder in the other direction.

From my perspective it seems as if organised progressivism ends up "going too far", because once you've got the win, you either stop and lose your reason to exist, or invent another cause and go for that.

It's like a treadmill and most people I know hopped off at some point because it got a bit too.. crazy? unstable? I kind of want to be able to plan my life long term, not have the rules change every 5 years.

It’s why these things go in cycles IMO - and also why older folks are almost always conservative.

They really do need to plan long term or they are deeply screwed (sometimes even then), and have seen enough back and forth they really don’t (or flat out can’t afford) a lot of change.

And have figured out how to adapt to whatever prior set of rules there was, roughly, or already died or became irrelevant.

What percent of the population do you think you would be running across in the particular VR chat area you were in, and how would those people have decided to be there?

Australia does not have the constitutional right to privacy like the US does...

- The 4th amendment of the US Constitution

Half of the "Bill of Rights" amendments touch on Privacy in some way. Privacy can be construed as the main right defining the "Bill of Rights". I cannot understand the hypocrisy of the "originalists" (many of whom have been placed into Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as a deliberate fraud against the voter majority under the "McConnell Plan") that believe the one single 2nd Amendment is a "right to unregulated gun ownership" when there's a "regulation clause" in the original language (!) but refuse to believe there is a "Right to Privacy" in the Bill of Rights when half of it seems so clearly about Privacy. It just doesn't use that word, perhaps because it seemed obvious at the time.

However, specific acts not mentioned in the Constitution, like the use of contraceptives between married couples or same sex marriage, have also been ruled to be protected under rights to privacy inferred from the 14th amendment, and these rights are now in legal limbo after Dobbs.

It’s worth pointing out that the word ‘privacy’ never appears in the US Constitution, and there certainly is nothing resembling an explicit ‘Right to Privacy’ as I think was claimed by the original poster.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_Sta...

What there are, though, are lots of people who don't want other people to be able to speak freely.

Again, you're speaking for yourself. Many people care nothing for self-expression. But it's interesting to note how easily you universalize your personal preferences.

GSM, SS7, etc. are massive privacy holes _by design_.

The whole purpose of mobile networks is to track a devices location (so you can route data to/from it!). Of course its easy to do it if your the operator or someone who has compromised it.

Not sure where you get your information, but these are routinely used by police to covertly track targets.

Many carriers implement this via "silent SMS" + IMAP (the same IMAP as for emails). The device will send an activation or status message to the carrier's visual voicemail number and the carrier will respond with an SMS containing the IMAP credentials.

The version of this I'm familiar with is T-Mobile's old CVVM protocol. During initial setup, the device will send a text message containing "Activate:dt=6" to the number 122 and T-Mobile will reply with (in decoded form):

    pw_len=4-9
    vs_len=10
    u=<IMAP username>
    pw=IMAP password>
    rc=0
    st=R
    ipt=148
    srv=e7.vvm.mstore.msg.t-mobile.com
    lang=1|2|3|4
    g_len=180

    curl -v imaps://<USERNAME>:<PASSWORD>@e7.vvm.mstore.msg.t-mobile.com/

    rc=0
    st=B
    srv=vvm.mstore.msg.t-mobile.com

In case anyone is interested, the vvmd wiki (visual voicemail implementation for Linux phones) has information on how several carriers implement VVM: https://gitlab.com/kop316/vvmplayer/-/wikis/Visual-Voicemail.... AT&T's is especially nasty.

By sending one that clears all of them in a network that doesn't use them (or sending one equivalent to the current state for one that does), you can achieve the outcome of initiating SMS-MT (mobile-terminated) delivery to a given ME (phone) without any user notification.

SMS delivery by necessity involves paging the device, revealing its location at a finer level (base station instead of paging area).

So I wouldn't say silent SMS were designed as a spying tool, but they're one out of several ways to silently "ping" a phone and force it to communicate with the network without having to wait for it to cross location area boundaries, get or make a call etc.

When these things were designed, privacy wasn't really a concern and wasn't really thought about in the way it is now. The assumptions were very different, it was assumed that only large and trusted companies could get on SS7 and those would play by the rules, or else face the wrath of the government. Now, a small carrier in a third-world country that routinely violates human rights can get that access.

Expect them to go after math once messaging goes decentralized. :-)

Could you please provide details about this?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/zscaler-announces-fedramp-pro...

And in that case, the proxy can both, manipulate the JS as well as the HTML, so the argument of the linked page is still faulty.

"The goal of Gentoo is to design tools and systems that allow a user to do that work as pleasantly and efficiently as possible, as they see fit." https://www.gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/

And this is what Torvalds had to say about LLM-enhanced submissions to the kernel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7-gJicosyA

AI can be used poorly, AI can be used well.

Gentoo is right here, and until we pass these hurdles, I don't use any of these systems, even with a 100 feet pole.

2) The specific issue you're talking about is because they don't see letters, they see tokens, which are groups of letters / subwords. It can't count those because it can't actually "see" what it's counting. This is being worked on as well.

"Banning LLM content" is in my opinion an effort spent on the wrong thing. If you want to ensure the quality of the code, you should focus on ensuring the code review and merge process is more thorough in filtering out subpar contributions effectively, instead of wasting time on trying to enforce unenforceable policies. They only give a false sense of trust and security. Would "[x] I solemnly swear I didn't use AI" checkbox give anything more than a false sense of security? Cheaters gonna cheat, and trusting them would be naive, politely said...

Spam... yeah, that is a valid concern, but it's also something that should be solved on organizational level.

I get the impression he agrees this road to LLM content is inevitable, but also kind of emphasises the role of the reviewer who takes the final decision.

Progress to where? One should not use "progress" as an unqualified noun to denote a scalar. Progress is a vector, with both magnitude and direction. The direction part is really important.