I make sure to hit not interested the second I see anything I very much don't want pop up in me feed. I don't want mine to drift towards the average feed of the lowest effort, sensationalist garbage.
The AI for everything thinking is really easy to let infect you. I was trying to figure out how to make some SQL alerting easier to understand quickly. The first thing my brain went to was "oh just shove it into an LLM to pull out the info of what the query is doing". And it unfortunately wasn't until after I said that out loud that I realized that was a stupid idea when you could just run a SQL parser over the query and pull the table names out that way. Far faster, more cost effective, and reliable than asking an LLM to do it.
Snowflake is typically used for data analytics in my experience. It's going to have financial stuff very likely, but not like raw documents. Definitely not source code.
I mean technically you can stuff documents into a column with the BINARY datatype provided they are under 67 MB each, but it's not really meant to be used as a document store.
"Fix for a critical issue when querying the CPU that could lead to data corruption in other processes executing at the same time"
Or, "hey ChatGPT generate me a changelog for updates and fixes I could make to the software CPU-Z"
Expecting a more detailed changelog doesn't help at all
(I'm not even sure you'd need to prompt an LLM around guardrails like I did here, it would probably happily spit out a fake changelog even if you were explicit about it not being real as long as you don't tell the LLM you're planning to trick people with malware)
Same. I used to pirate software but even way back I kept it limited to very popular software and established downloads (where if they were malware they were almost certain to be in a signature database by that point). And I absolutely never pirated an OS. I thought anyone doing that was out of their freaking mind because any malware there had ultimate access to block its own detection and do whatever else it pleased.
Now I don't do it at all. It's not worth the risk when I have the money to pay for the proprietary software that I like and when the ecosystem of open source software is very good.
It's far less studied and didn't exist (to any usable degree) at the time it was made. And it's extremely different, organizationally, so it's a difficult migration to pull off. And it has different incentives. And most miners have a lot of costs (e.g. hardware) that won't be recoverable if it's changed, so there's a fairly strong incentive to not change it.
Ethereum uses proof of stake now though (since 2022). Which happened in part because Ethereum is effectively centralized, or at least significantly more-so than Bitcoin.
I'm not an expert on this, but maybe it is easier to pressure the verifiers to not verify sanctioned entities? Seems to be already happening with Ethereum US nodes maintaining OFAC lists. Maybe one can also pressure them to verify alternative blocks without the transactions, then they won't be possible.
Other than that, it is probably tradition at this point, like with Gold.
I'll throw "proof-of-useful-work" into the ring. Reallocating at least a portion of BTCs verification onto existing energy costs could go a long way.
Not suggesting it would be easy or that the entire network would be able to agree on what tasks to use, just that it's a theoretical option.
It's also not simply a matter of agreeing on what tasks to use. The task has to be computationally difficult to perform, but computationally trivial to verify. It must also be verifiable with only the context of the blockchain (no "oracle" that can make claims about real-world events).
Primecoin exist(ed?) and used the search for Mersenne prime numbers as its proof-of-work. That was 13 years ago and is still the only example I know of "proof-of-useful-work", and it would not be difficult to find sour voices challenging its usefulness.
While they don't have that many in the wild, the number of implementations it lists is still more than I expected. There's also the Monero 51% takeover, which was purportedly done using a PoUW technique to garner more hashing power.
It's so unhelpful for people to get mad at made up crap. It completely weakens the impact of the pushback. Like if someone is in a position where people are getting mad over all sorts of made up stuff anyway, what's even the point of avoiding actually doing any of the things they're mad about? Might as well get something out of it if the downside doesn't change either way.
Really? At my workplace if we had a vendor email us about needing to take some action to continue being able to work with them, but we didn't follow through with that, any business disruption would be squarely on us for not handling it. At the very least even if we can't meet a supposed deadline, we need to work with the vendor to get extensions if possible, and if that's not possible then we either need to mitigate the impact or get more resources on the changes ASAP.
The claim is they didn't get any email, not that they ignored it. It feels reasonable to expect Microsoft to have tried an alternative contact method given they are very high profile and easy to contact projects.
reply