How did the board plan pull this off if Mullenweg has 84% of the voting shares? For that matter, what is even the purpose of a board in a multi-class share structure with the founder holding above 50% voting shares.
Google is not developing Android for the IAP fees, they're doing it to sell phones loaded with their search, advertising, browser and services. They take hundreds of billions in revenue annually from this, they are being paid several times over for that work even if they get no IAP fees.
Their systems aren't going rogue, they're being given bad instructions and poor safeguards.
This is, at this point in time, entirely the fault of OpenAI and one might wonder if there's motives behind this lack of care for safety and brashness.
Although some people say you shouldn't call malice when it could be incompetence. But last I knew, these frontier labs were hiring the best of the best.
Just wanted to post this here, someday it might be cool to have this regionally as well, but Sep 12-14 HomelabFest will be in St. Louis, MO (technically St. Charles, which is closer to the airport). It will include a number of homelab-related content creators, talks, a bunch of cool exhibitors (mix of community and companies in the homelab space)... hopefully a good time for all!
I meant to post this earlier but was a bit overwhelmed with all the inbound email. (Planning an event of this scale is hard, I have empathy for anyone who does it lol.)
It seems every DeepSeek paper/patent has a huge number of authors, and this one is no exception. They couldn't even fit everyone on the page, there are 31 others not shown. This could be an asset protection strategy (i.e., human assets). Imagine if there were only 3 authors. Those authors may get hired away by competitors. If you list every employee on every paper then competitors don't know who to lure away.
My jobs made me hate programming long before LLMs. If anything I enjoy programming more now that I can tell the LLM to do the bullshit I don’t want to do, saving my energy for interesting problems…usually ones found outside of my 9-5.
I'm surprised anyone still uses wordpress after this whole sh!tshow, but outside HN folks probably don't even know. Just reading about it about it puts me off from the product and company.
Someone who cares about the barcode tends to care about other details. In some ways it's like the band riders that have silly things like no brown m&m's.
My employer pays for Claude, and my approach is to use it as a better Google search. It's often not better.
Just today it made three glaring mistakes in one session:
1. It read a file in the wrong directory, because that file had the same name as the file in the right directory. It apologized when I challenged it, promising me that it would remember to "read import statements" in the future.
2. It miscounted the number of times a function was called in my repo. It said 20, while my built-in IDE search accurately showed 17. Again, it apologized when I corrected it.
3. It referred to a variable by name that does not exist anywhere in my code. It apologized, and said it was referring to a variable used internally by one of the third-party packages installed in my repo.
So many apologies.
It's the little things like this that remind me on a regular basis just how little I can trust artificial "intelligence."
> Calling it zero day makes it sound elusive ... has like 40 CVEs this year alone.
1. I clicked into ~20 of the recent CVEs, and it looks like about all of them came from openai or anthropic research?
2. In fact, every CVE in the last 2 years came from the last few months -- i.e. other than these recent CVEs, you'd have go back more than 2 years ago to find a single other CVE.
I don't think anyone plans on trying to step in and intervene, but I hope people also don't shy from talking about how foolish this move is, the problems it won't solve, the problems it's likely to cause, and the people whose lives are being negatively impacted by it.
> The fix is to set bit 13 of MCSR24 to 1. MCSR24 is an internal CSR whose function is not described in the manual. After setting this bit, the lost update no longer occurs. Testing showed the performance loss is very small: single-core performance is unaffected, and multi-core performance drops only slightly.
As was sort of offhandedly mentioned in the article, all pre-LLM research into what results in students actually learning the material (as a distinct thing from passing the class) has landed pretty solidly on the side of frequent, low-stakes exams having better outcomes than rare high-stakes exams. The best students learn the material regardless of how you evaluate them; some weaker students will benefit from more frequent nudges to keep up rather than trying to cram at the end, some students simply won't realize they're falling behind without regular feedback, and some students successfully cram at the end and pass the class without retaining much of the material. The final group often expresses a preference for the one-exam-at-the-end model despite being disserved by it if the goal is to learn and not merely pass.
"When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through."
You are abdicating your responsibility, which is fine for toy apps for yourself, but less fine when people expect that 2fa implementation to protect their accounts.
Custom chips aren't as expensive as you think. About a few million dollars for the design and a hundred thousand chips, way out of reach for a hobbyist, but accessible to large enough companies. Just because it's opaque to us software people doesn't mean it's not a real industry you can buy things from.
That's great for you, but you're completely devoid of empathy if you can't understand these posts. For many, many people, the things that are left are not the enjoyable ones. People have built hobbies and careers around doing something they love and its relevance is evaporating at an unprecedented rate.
Nobody's asking for more bureaucracy, they're asking for these companies to be held properly accountable, which will involve bureaucracy.
Nobody's asking for computers that use a lot of electricity, they're asking for powerful computers, which will use a lot of electricity. You can't just turn up with a space heater and pretend it's the same thing because it also uses a lot of electricity.
> This access seems to have only allowed the agents to make ‘GET’ requests, meaning they could fetch and read websites, but not interact with them, submit forms, or send data to them
The authors of this (very interesting) analysis should really not state the sandbox's wrong assumptions in their own voice.
GET absolutely allows you to interact with sites. And of course GET can also send information. It's all up to the server that receives the GET to decide what it let's callers do with it.
It is insane how many times I see this false analogy repeated on HN over and over (analogy of a deterministic-by-design calculator device (or a compiler, etc.) and a non-deterministic-by-design LLM software).
Maybe the Germans were right? One in-person test, preferably an interview, at the end of the semester should be enough to motivate the smarter part of the bunch to make sure they understand the issues at hand. The rest is chaff anyway. Don't optimize for chaff.
