Some correct programs are supposed to run forever.
When is an OS supposed to halt? When you shut it down, or when you power down the hardware, and no other times. So if you don't do either of those things, then the OS is supposed to run forever. Does that, by itself, mean that the program is incorrect, or that the language is inadequate? No, it means that the definition is worthless (or at least worthless for programs like OSes).
The Sam Altman Molotov guy has been charged with ... attempted murder.
I realize we're living in a day and age when people are put on trial (and acquitted!) for assault with a deadly sandwich but I don't think a reasonable prosecutor would file attempted murder charges for a flaming bag of dog shit.
"The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) points out that "Master-slave is an oppressive metaphor that will and should never become fully detached from history" as well as "In addition to being inappropriate and arcane, the master-slave metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate." There's lots of more accurate options depending on context and it costs me nothing to change my vocabulary, especially if it is one less little speed bump to getting a new person excited about tech."
I wouldn’t say it’s “clear”. If you want good answers to your Internet blog begs, it’s probably good to actually state your use case. “I just want S3” means different things to different people.
So you want people who sell a business to be open to liability for things that the new owner does? Don't you see what kind of negative consequences that would have?
> When we speak of bugs in a verified software system, I think it's fair to consider the entire binary a fair target.
Yeah, I would actually agree. We wouldn't want to advertise that a system is formally verified in some way if that creates a false sense of security. I was just pointing out that, by my reading, the title appears to suggest that the core mechanism of the Lean proof is somehow flawed. When I read the title, I immediately thought, "Oooh. Looks like someone demonstrated a flaw in the proof. Neat." But that's not what is shown in the article. Just feels a bit misleading is all.
The chances of significant bugs in lean which lead to false answers to real problems are extremely small (this bug still just caused a crash, but is still bad). Many, many people try very hard to break Lean, and think about how proofs work, and fail. Is it foolproof? No. It might have flaws, it might be logic itself is inconsistent.
I often think of the ‘news level’ of a bug. A bug in most code wouldn’t be news. A bug which caused lean to claim a real proof someone cared about was true, when it wasn’t, would in the proof community the biggest news in a decade.
Thats bs...it says right in the article that the payout for a trailer truck accident can be a million usd. Pretty sure that is a major attraction to the 25% of NO that lives in poverty.
> It all sort of ties into Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem. A system cannot be fully described from within that system.
Surely you are talking about Godel incompleteness, not Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; in which case they're actually not the same system - the verification/proof language is a metalanguage taking the implementation language as its object.
The prosecutors see slamming as "non-violent". Something is seriously wrong with them.
> Peter Strasser, the U.S. Attorney, was in his office when one of his prosecutors entered, looking shaken, and said that the key coöperating witness in the slammers case had just been murdered. “I would never have believed it, because this was a nonviolent case,”
Is there a reliable way to move content from OneNote to Obsydian? I have 10+ years of notes there and have a hard time figuring out how to migrate them to markdown.
What does Facebook use internally these days. I'm amazed that the state of review tools is still at or behind what we had a decade ago for the most part.
I see an objective difference in speed between Team account and my personal max 20 and a subjective difference in quality.
On my personal account projects get 90% and then get stuck on a bug and then I have to hand the project over to codex to fix. Then codex usually is like “this feature was stubbed out and not connected at all”. Like wtf is going on with Claude. It gets so much complicated stuff right and then completely whiffs the main details.
On my teams premium account, I can complete things fine and fast.
Anyone here who is currently 'underwhelmed'; please get through all 10 steps here and then say the same thing.
This is just the beginning. I seriously can't believe this place turned into neo-boomerism ideology on tech. I honestly don't get it, just makes me think everyone here talking about being seniors and architecture and blah blah; don't actually know shit, and aren't actually good at what they do.
How on earth can you write an article that practically plagiarizes the title, mention the paradox, and neither mention mandelbrot nor cite the original paper anywhere!?
I wrote my first neural net in the late 90s. Based on nothing but an old geocities post some rando put up about training a model to only unlock a pet door for their cat.
I implemented the same and it worked.
Where you see true innovation I see run of the mill. OpenAI, Google, etc are propping up data center rental business they came to rely on to titillate biology with whatever spaghetti that sticks. That's it.
The interesting science isn't happening anywhere close to big tech.
The mathematics of LLMs exists in textbooks from 1950s. Your entire comment chain here is little more than reciting propaganda.
When is an OS supposed to halt? When you shut it down, or when you power down the hardware, and no other times. So if you don't do either of those things, then the OS is supposed to run forever. Does that, by itself, mean that the program is incorrect, or that the language is inadequate? No, it means that the definition is worthless (or at least worthless for programs like OSes).