Please stop projecting positions onto me that I don’t hold. If what people told the OP was that LLMs don’t plagiarize, then great, that’s a different argument from what I described in my reply, thank you for the answer. But you could try not being a dick about it?
But the system isn’t designed for that, why would you expect it to do so? Did somebody tell the OP that these systems work by citing a source, and the issue is that it doesn’t do that?
If your issue with the result is plagiarism, what would have been a non-plagiarizing way to reproduce the information? Should the system not have reproduced the information at all? If it shouldn’t reproduce things it learned, what is the system supposed to do?
Or is the issue that it reproduced an idea that it probably only read once? I’m genuinely not sure, and the original comment doesn’t have much to go on.
I’ll get downvoted for this, but: what exactly is your point? The AI didn’t reproduce the text verbatim, it reproduced the idea. Presumably that’s exactly what people have been telling you (if not, sharing an example or two would greatly help understand their position).
If those “reply guys” argued something else, feel free to disregard. But it looks to me like you’re arguing against a straw man right now.
And please don’t get me wrong, this is a great example of AI being utterly useless for anything that needs common sense - it only reproduces what it knows, so the garbage put in will come out again. I’m only focusing on the point you’re trying to make.
Those were their first tests, of course there is a high chance they won’t run on all system configurations (especially since things like WINE comparability were likely detailed later). You should try artifacts built with the current version of the format (3 IIRC) if you want to give it a fair shot.
I just tried the current redbean build on Linux AMD64, and everything worked as expected (both launching directly, and through sh). Which examples did you specifically try? Which sh version do you use (I have 5.2.26(1)-release (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu))?
The cosmopolitan README has a section on the WINE thing, if you want to try and get it running.
No, it also works for ARM - you can even build a fat binary with an ARM -> x86 translation layer, i.e. one binary for both architectures!
KDE Plasma is my favourite Windows distribution! So much faster than Safari.
I honestly think this is fearmongering. Yes, Microsoft is a shitty company that has done shitty things, but:
The only real option they have to do what you’re describing is to implement new features that could be used for monetizing it - there would be some inertia regarding community forks. But even then I can’t come up with any monetization model that could make sense. Do you have a specific example in mind?
No:
$ python
Python 3.10.13 (main, Jan 28 2024, 03:02:00) [GCC 13.2.1 20230918 (Red Hat 13.2.1-3)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> def handle_foo(value: list[int]) -> bool:
... return 42
...
>>> print(handle_foo(False))
42
Ah, gotcha, thanks! I’d have loved a strongly-typed option.
The static typing system is slowly getting there, but many useful Python patterns can’t be expressed yet. You can, for example, write a function that appends an item to a generic tuple - but you can’t concatenate two tuples. I really hope they keep expanding on the system!
Which one? There is static typing with the typing module, but that’s not strong.
I didn’t say that, not sure what you’re arguing against?
The idea that it’s in any way easier to monitor for your targets ordering new phones, then covertly moving personnel into that specific shipping facility, having them find the package, open it, flash it, close it and sending it back on its way while hoping they don’t install a new software update, compared to going to a company and saying “deploy this update to that phone” makes absolutely no sense, but you do you.
Because the secret service of one country acting in another country where they don’t have jurisdiction is an international political crisis that could lead to war. Don’t play dumb.
One means a country forcing a company acting inside that country to do something. The other means one country having to ask another country to be allowed to force a company acting inside the other country to do something. See where one is much easier?
I disagree. If the packages aren’t routed through UK, you’d have to work with other countries secret service, distribution companies, and you have much more legal troubles to consider.
Why would they attempt to go through unsold iPhones? They can simply force Apple to push updates to all existing iPhones.
I presume you’re talking about e.g. this comment:
PWAs traditionally have had hardware access not available to web pages within the browser. This makes a PWA more of a security risk than a web page, but also means you can have a PWA compass, or a PWA wifi troubleshooting app, or a PWA government ID app that can use the camera and microphone to validate the user outside Apple’s own APIs. It’s more than just extra cookie storage and expanded localstorage.
So if a PWA was deployed via Chrome, Apple would also have to give the Chrome PWA instance those permissions, without Apple being able to have intimate knowledge of the consequences on the back end, since Chrome isn’t WebKit. And Apple doesn’t have the same level of security vetting for third party software (like Chrome) that they do for OS internals (like WebKit).
If this doesn’t represent what you had in mind, could you quote specific comments?
I would disagree with the premise. A website and an application aren’t the same thing just because they are written in the same language (javascript).
This isn’t what I claimed. You are correct that using the same programming language doesn’t mean two things are in the same category, but that’s not my point. They are using the same:
The only difference is that a few additional APIs are available and some browser restrictions have different value. That’s because Progressive Web Apps are literally meant to be websites that provide functionality and have progressive enhancements (i.e. feature detection, you use what you can without breaking because of what you can’t). This means we’re talking about the PWA being the same website, displayed in the same application, served from the same server.
Many, if not most, PWAs are websites that provide the same actual functionality with or without being installed, maybe without a couple niceties (e.g. bigger offline storage). Many don’t use features beyond what they offer as a normal website. This means all there is to distinguish PWAs and websites is how the user opened them on their phone.
This is sort of reductive. Yes, and no. It’s more than just a link on your home screen. More than just a set of html pages saved locally. It downloads the entire javascript app, the manifest, the icons, all that stuff and packages it up. When you run one of these you’d have no indication that you’re in a website. There is no browser URL bar or any of that. Only the controls in the app. It’s not really “just a website and nothing more”.
No, it really is just a website and nothing more. Just because the browser UI is different doesn’t mean it’s a different thing. All of the technology itself is available to all websites, which is what is relevant for PWAs being “a massive vector for malware”, as initially claimed.
It’s a javascript program running on a phones javascript engine (which is currently webkit and locked down).
Yes, just like with any other website that uses Javascript. And Apple will have to allow other Javascript engines - so what’s the difference with PWAs specifically?
An app in just about every sense of the word. https://app.starbucks.com is a great example. Even works offline once you save it.
Yes, and the same APIs are available to other websites. Look up service workers.
That was pretty much my experience with most of MacOS - you have to pay for many basic features, and pray that the tools have been updated to work on current OS versions.