I think those calculations are wrong, because they seem to assume that the heat is uniformly distributed, and that clearly isn't correct.
It's still pretty appalling, but I don't believe those numbers. (Coming up with more believable numbers, though, is beyond me. I couldn't even believe a number based on a gradient, and that's impossible anyway because there aren't enough measurements at the bottom.)
With apples, IIUC, you need to worry about the coddling moth. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpnwhandbooks.org%2Finsec...
Where I used to live it was illegal to grow apples without spraying them with vile insecticides because of that.
While you're technically right about the banana not being a tree, it's commonly called a "banana tree". This is an English vs. technicalese distinction. Just like a walnut isn't a nut, but rather a drupe...in technicalese.
These were people who worked in defence so anywhere behind the Iron Curtain was right out and I imagine Cuba would have been too. Even Austria was considered a risk, probably because so many spies would hang out there from both sides.
Or so they told me. I can't be entirely sure they weren't exagerrating.
Yes, certain destinations were off-limits to people who chose to work in defense, however that falls far shy of this "Exit Ban".
The US saying "If you travel to Cuba, you may face charges when you return" or even "You have been charged with a specific crime, so you cannot leave until the charges are resolved is significantly different from China saying "You are important to our plans, so you cannot leave the country at all, and neither can your immediate family", or forbidden a US citizen from leaving because of visa inconsistencies, much less the common situation where Chinese employers require staff to surrender their passports.
Yes, a judge can require the defendant to surrender their passport as a condition of bail, but the USA lacks effective exit controls, so that isn't actually a high barrier to exiting (but makes it tough to come back).
If, as the article suggests, this is an "Exit Ban" on certain individuals and extending to their family members, that's significantly more restrictive than anything the US has imposed on defense workers and top scientists other than during wartime.
Yes, people with sensitive jobs and a security clearance are strongly discouraged from visiting hostile nations, with a subset even being required to submit their travel plans before any foreign travel, but this is explained clearly when you accept employment directly with the US government, or start working under a government contract, and you're always free to not accept the job offer. And yes, all US citizens were for many years prohibited to travel to embargoed nations (Cuba). But this was nowhere near an "exit ban" on key personnel, much less on their family members!
When I held a clearance, I was never forbidden to leave the USA. I might not have a job when I get back, but that's not the same thing at all.
Yes, AI programmed by large corporations, are biased in favor of the company that build them.
You use Gemini (made by Googled) it will favor Youtube (owned by Google) videos over other content.
And yes, it will push the political beliefs of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Sundar Pichai.
They try to be subtle, but the bias is there if you look for it.
To Betteridge.
Of course AI chatbots are spreading misinformation; that is their entire function.
The reality isn't Terminator or Slaughterbots (yet); it's much more mundane.
For those already in power, AI further concentrates that power by drowning out the discourse among the rest of us.
It's not even necessary for the BS to be believed, only that all other conversations and analytical thought is interrupted.
And human drivers are NOT, "on average, really bad".
That is true, but it's a little more complicated than that.
The average driver is pretty good, 99.9% of the time. The other 0.1% of the time, they are tired, or angry, or momentarily distracted, or just looking the other direction from where they need to be looking under those particular circumstances. It's those occasional blips of inattention that cause lead to most accidents occurring.
Well, possibly because their lives aren't centered around their professed religion. Most "Christians" seem to be such only in professed belief.
"Super Intelligence" will only be used in English. So why shouldn't they agree. It's only the English arguments that will end up polluted.
OTOH, this agreement appears to mean exactly nothing. This perception may turn out to be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. But what could one expect when neither side could reasonably trust the other, and neither would agree to openly verifiable tests. (I.e. neither side *should* trust the other.)
We need to be able to jail the morons that let this situation develop, not merely sue them.
Why?
Because the people in charge think they will always have enough money to be sued.
Note, as others have mentioned, this is not a training problem, it is an air gap problem.
That is, no one trying to develop software that hacks other software should be allowed to put it on the internet. It needs to be developed on air gapped computers that physically cannot get to the internet.
This also means that 'agents' should have the same rules. If you cannot ensure your agents do not attempt to hack software, then your agents should not be allowed out of your computer.
OK. I don't have those, so I don't know about that.
I mainly don't do auto-update because
But I value even a 1 line change that clears a static analysis warning if even in practice it was impossible to trigger the issue in a real system.
Yes, I agree. The problem with thinking "this bug seems harmless, because I can't imagine how anyone could exploit it" is in the "I can't imagine" part; my imagination is limited to what is covered by my mental model of how computers work, but an attackers' ingenuity is not.
In particular, the C/C++ optimizer is a devious beast, and will exploit any opportunity to make the code more efficient, even if that means doing things that are wildly unintuitive to a naive human reader -- and it sees any instance of undefined behavior as an opportunity to exploit.
If you're running Debian, there's no benefit to you, because Debian is getting the same warnings, and responding just as fast (or faster).
OTOH, I don't have the version name memorized. I think Trixie is the current one, so that just means be sure to run apt update frequently. (I do it nearly every night.)
Algol-60 surely must be regarded as the most important programming language yet developed. -- T. Cheatham
