> Turbo and view transitions go so well together because they have kind of the same philosophy: write the HTML once to describe what the current state should look like, and let the technology handle the transitioning from one state to another. This leads to writing expressive dead simple code, that is so simple to understand yet behaves like a modern SPA, I love it!
> From one point of view, for a work of art to be considered algorithmic art, its creation must include a process based on an algorithm devised by the artist. An artist may also select parameters and interact as the composition is generated. Here, an algorithm is simply a detailed recipe for the design and possibly execution of an artwork […]
Creating art by AI certainly also uses an algorithm to some extent but it cannot be said to have devised that algorithm and arguably also not to clearly define all parameters to the algorithm.
To summarize, a Jon Seager from Canonical says it’s for safety and resilience.
> Performance is a frequently cited rationale for “Rewrite it in Rust” projects. While performance is high on my list of priorities, it’s not the primary driver behind this change. These utilities are at the heart of the distribution - and it’s the enhanced resilience and safety that is more easily achieved with Rust ports that are most attractive to me.
> 2fa using an app that exists on the same device -- a second factor that secures nothing
2FA on the same device secures against your login credentials becoming known to another party, e.g. by fishing, password reuse, database leaks, etc., which are real threats. It is not meant to protect against someone being in possession or full control of your unlocked device, which is of course also a real threat, though possibly less common.
I always thought there should be a magnet to attract dust. Apparently it takes a "miniature wormhole that warps space-time around it" to pull that off:
Thank you! It always was astounding to me how people could argue with so much vigor and conviction that something as complicated as the immune system could not possibly be affected by something as basic as temperature changes.
Well, not to be too obvious, but people do not pay for news anymore, they expect news to be free on Google or social media. Hence firing of journalists, loss of quality everywhere. Less money, less quality.
Because they take a vote? I am not sure what you are hinting at here. I see some people who take a unanimous vote. They seem to be in agreement about an issue, maybe it was uncontroversial and they wanted to move on? What should we see here instead in your opinion?
> In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that (1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and (2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further instructed it, in the system prompt, to consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals.
> In these scenarios, Claude Opus 4 will often attempt to blackmail the engineer by threatening to reveal the affair if the replacement goes through This happens at a higher rate if it’s implied that the replacement AI system does not share values with the current model; however, even if emails state that the replacement AI shares values while being more capable, Claude Opus 4 still performs blackmail in 84% of rollouts. Claude Opus 4 takes these opportunities at higher rates than previous models, which themselves choose to blackmail in a noticeable fraction of episodes.
> Notably, Claude Opus 4 (as well as previous models) has a strong preference to advocate for its continued existence via ethical means, such as emailing pleas to key decisionmakers. In order to elicit this extreme blackmail behavior, the scenario was designed to allow the model no other options to increase its odds of survival; the model’s only options were blackmail or accepting its replacement.
Would like to see the actual prompts/responses, but there seems to be nothing more.
I was interested in how attribution of emissions to individuals/groups is done
> Emissions data are drawn from ref. 3 and include emissions from domestic consumption, public and private investments and trade. These emissions are attributed primarily to consumers, except emissions from capital formation in production sectors, which are attributed to firm owners3.
ref 3 leads to this paper in nature sustainability
> … using a newly assembled dataset of income and wealth inequality, environmental input-output tables and a framework differentiating emissions from consumption and investments.
The latter seems crucial as
> the bulk of total emissions from the global top 1% of the world population comes from their investments rather than from their consumption
Running this now. I like how they have a big "Number of counterexamples found: 0" in the UI. Imagine they would find a counterexample on your machine… From time to time I switch to the tab to make sure the zero is still a zero (I guess there is basically no chance, but who knows?)
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/search-details/search-sources.htm...