You can still find articles lambasting the iphone for having a small screen, 'who would want to surf the web on their phone'.
The CEO is in large part responsible for picking what products have hope to grow the company. The iphone was far from a slam dunk, many thought it would fail. Now it's responsible for over half their revenue and they're one of the largest companies in the world.
>Then he became CEO and the company and was, finally, phenomenally successful.
I'm totally confused by your post, so you admit he became a good CEO then?
Heartbleed, one of the worst bugs in terms of exploitability and reach, was a bug that many engineers would be able to spot, if they were explicitly looking for it.
That's the risk of tools like Mythos/Fable/any LLM. While a human's eyes would glaze over what looks like a standard memcpy, an LLM with the right context might instantly realize the payload length was never actually verified.
And since Heartbleed existed for years, despite the full bug existing in pretty much one file, in one of the most important libraries out there, it's right to be afraid of what other obvious bugs exist and are just waiting to be found.
Makes sense, drone technology has come an insane distance since these were developed.
Probably the biggest learning from the Ukraine war alone is the effectiveness of cheap drones. It was suspected for years but hadn't been put to the test yet.
>Hacker news has a lot of owners, managers and what John Steinbeck called "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" (e.g. future failed startup founders).
This way of thinking is so depressing to read about. If we ignore the strawman argument and just look at what 'point' you're making, you're basically making fun of people for having high aspirations. A bit of a 'look at this guy, he thinks he can run his own business! Dummy' energy.
>I'm sure many of them are reaching for the downvote as they read this.
In a perfect world enough people would have hit flag by now where I wouldn't have had to read this at all.
I got one, it's pretty cool that it's small enough to just magnet to the back of your phone. If your someone who needs to use a large font on their ereader to read its certainly not for you, but the screen size is good enough for regular sized text.
I truly don't doubt it's possible for the AI to be 'racist'.
>If the AI had recommended Black and Asian candidates at the same rate as it recommended the most-favored group (typically white applicants), 40,000 more of their applications would have advanced to the next stage of hiring.
I don't think this is the right benchmark here, or at least, it would be very interesting if the actual outcome, offer or rejected, was considered at the end.
>“Our estimate is that about 200 to 400 pedestrians a year would not have died if vehicles had remained approximately the same size over the past quarter-century,” the report continued. “That represents about 10 percent of the recent increase in pedestrian deaths.”
Am I crazy? The article itself points out that only 10% of the increase would have been 'saved' if cars had remained the same size. This goes directly against the title no?
There's certainly more than one reason, my gut would point to more smart phone use both by drivers and even by pedestrians themselves.
I wonder if one day using a smart phone while driving will have the same stigma as a DUI (and similar punishment). I struggle to argue it shouldn't, its sometimes a little crazy to think about that if the person in the other lane gets distracted on their phone, I might be involved in a head on collision at 60+mph.
Honestly, what do you think a teacher does that an llm can't? If you want to learn you absolutely can ask an llm how to _solve_ x and explain the steps and why.
My leaving out the word solve seems to have led some of you astray, I apologize.
Again the problem is you have the option to solve your problem and move on without understanding it. That does not mean you can not use the tool to understand the problem and how to _solve_ it.
I live in fear that instead of learning how to use the tool, some might just vote to ban the tool.
>I think so too. But we haven’t demonstrated we’ve found how, in kids or in adults.
Ask chatgpt or claude, on their highest model (probably unnecessary but I'm sensing a vibe) to explain a simple linear algebra problem, and if you don't understand it, ask about what part you don't understand.
And if you truly believe it made something up, prove it.
This is seriously the easiest thing to prove out there, you can see for yourself in the next 5 minutes.
I think AI could (and by some students probably already is) be used to help a student better understand the material, and faster than you could before. I still recall some parts of Physics taking a while to click, and often having to reread different sections of a textbook to try and understand the what and why behind something.
The biggest issue is a child has to want to do that, since they also could just ask the AI for the answer and then go back to playing video games. End of the day past age 13 or so I just don't see legislation making any difference, they'll find a way past any law blocking them from using AI. Like a lot of education it'll probably come down to parenting.
This links to some other blog post for the bulk of it's 'why', and that blog post mostly seems to be annoyed about "You cannot invalidate individual JWT tokens". Which every time I've implemented, the general guideline is to check for invalidated nonces somewhere. Which resolves that random blog posts second point too.
>The JWT specification itself is not trusted by security experts.
This feels like it needs more evidence than just one blog post. And that blog post seems to just largely blame bad implementations? Something that will plague any standard.
Overall, I don't know what I expected clicking a random gist link.
Wallpaper Engine is pretty old now, and I remember using it years ago reading warning about not downloading unknown wallpapers. I believe there's even settings in the configuration not to run arbitrary code. 8 year old post about it, but honestly pretty sure it's been warned since day 1. [1]
The CEO is in large part responsible for picking what products have hope to grow the company. The iphone was far from a slam dunk, many thought it would fail. Now it's responsible for over half their revenue and they're one of the largest companies in the world.
>Then he became CEO and the company and was, finally, phenomenally successful.
I'm totally confused by your post, so you admit he became a good CEO then?