So no, they are not fine-tuning a general purpose model to produce "valid benchmark code results."

I guess LLMs have made it too simple to instantly build startup landing page slop, which causes this? Like, do we need to see the github star count chart? Do we need all the buzzwords and stuff? You'd think this was a startup trying to get a billion dollar evaluation. It feels disingenuous.

Maybe I'm just being a hater.

Fascinating. Cloudflare is envisioning a future where agents are given debit cards by their owners, so they can autonomously send microtransactions to website owners to scrape content or possibly purchase goods on the owner's behalf. I don't know how I feel about that but there's no doubt it's a fascinating concept.

Brb, setting up a honeypot that always responds with HTTP 402 Payment Required demanding 10cents per visit... That's the next "selling 1 million pixels on my website for $1 each", I guess

How much of these sorts of patches are specifically checking if a certain application is running, and then changing behavior to match what that application expects? And how much of it is simply better emulating the Windows API in general?

I think there are benefits to both approaches, not criticizing either one. I'm just curious if the implementation of a patch like this is "We fixed an inconsistency between Wine and Windows" vs "We're checking if Photoshop is running and using a different locking primitive" or whatever.

It will automatically implement the most general, relaxed version (FnMut I think?) and only restrict itself further to FnOnce and Fn based on what you do inside the closure.

So, it can be tricky to know what's going on, and making a code change can change the contract of the closure and therefore where and how it can be used.

(I invite rust experts to correct me if any of the above is mistaken - I always forget the order of precedence for FnOnce/Fn/FnMut and which implies which)

I would never make the argument that there are no risks. But there's also no way you can make the argument there are no payoffs!

Where are you finding that info? Not saying you're wrong; just saying that I didn't see that specified anywhere in the linked page, or on their HF.

from a technical point of view, I suppose it's actually not a problem like he suggests. You can use all the pro-democracy, pro-free-speech, anti-PRC data in the world, but the pretraining stages (on the planet's data) are more for instilling core language abilities, and are far less important than the SFT / RL / DPO / etc stages, which require far less data, and can tune a model towards whatever ideology you'd like. Plus, you can do things like selectively identify vectors that encode for certain high-level concepts, and emphasize them during inference, like Golden Gate Claude.

I thought that'd be the case for ios 26. But after installing it... yeesh. I can barely see anything. It's just awful.

This read like a dark twist in a horror novel - the .page tld is controlled by Google!

https://get.page/

But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline.

So I'm curious, did the reporter do their due diligence, and write the article in a way that is factually correct, but highly misleading? Or did they simply not follow basic reporting protocol?

Opening line:

> A US Air Force F-35 pilot spent 50 minutes on an airborne conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers trying to solve a problem with his fighter jet before he ejected

Am I illiterate or misreading it?

> After going through system checklists in an attempt to remedy the problem, the pilot got on a conference call with engineers from the plane’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, *as the plane flew near the air base. *

Is this actually some insane weasel-wording by CNN? "We never said the pilot (he is in fact a pilot) was the one flying the jet, we just said 'as the plane flew', not 'as he flew the plane', using passive voice, so we're not wrong - but it was another pilot flying the plane"

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44500588

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Normally the pathway for this kind of thing would be:

1. theorized

2. proven in a research lab

3. not feasible in real-world use (fizzles and dies)

if you're lucky the path is like

1. theorized

2. proven in a research lab

3. actually somewhat feasible in real-world use!

4. startups / researchers split off to attempt to market it (fizzles and dies)

the fact that this ended up going from research paper to "Comcast can tell if I'm home based on my body's physical interaction with wifi waves" is absolutely wild

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381246

Points: 2

# Comments: 0