Some employers get tangled up in just the legal review process.

Once I asked permission to submit a patch to a project and it had quite an interesting email trail. It came down to a single question: if the patch was written during hours billed to a customer for the purpose of fixing a bug in a deliverable product, and the library being patched had to be recompiled and delivered with the source code, and the contract states that all work and intellectual property associated to the product would be transferred to the customer, do we have authority to release the patch in the public domain?

Legal didn’t want to answer it.

DoD does appear to offer a “Defense Industrial Base - Vulnerability Disclosure Program” for all public-facing DoD/DoW systems.[1] However, this might not include contractor-controlled assets or services. I cannot view the HackerOne page that it redirects to (login is required) to view more details.

[1]: https://www.dc3.mil/Missions/Vulnerability-Disclosure/DIB-Vu...

Since they’re using Go to accept requests and forwarding them to their SQLite connection, it may have been worthwhile to produce the same interface with Rust to demonstrate whether or not SQLite itself was hitting its performance limit or if Go had some hand in that.

Other than that, it’s a good demonstration of how a custom solution for a lightweight task can pay off. Keep it simple but don’t reinvent the wheel if the needs are very general.

Looking forward to information down the line on how this came about.

Plenty of consumer-grade devices have had very lax security settings or backdoors baked in for purposes of “troubleshooting” and recovery assistance. It’s never been limited to foreign-made devices.

Security has never been part of the review process. The only time any agency has really cared is when encryption is involved, and that’s just been the FBI wanting it to be neutered so they can have their own backdoors.

Because it doesn’t actually understand what a yes-no question is.

To what extent is Claude configuring these servers? Is this baremetal deployment with OS configuration and service management? Or is it abstracted by defining Terraform files to use pre-created images offered by a hosting service?

In general, yes. Technical documents, research reports, news articles, and other formal publications should follow this.

Anything else which allows a bit more freedom in expression? I’d say it’s a matter of taste.

This is essentially my point. The AI emits an answer and people will, in turn, copy and paste the result as-is. It’s a repeat all over again of people simply copy-pasting something from Wikipedia and trying to pass it off as their own.

I probably should’ve checked ‘454545’ in the ascii table. Seeing how it translates to ‘---‘ could’ve hinted towards that, but the clever use probably would’ve been applauded instead without thinking it was a joke.

Ah well. Egg on my face I suppose.

It’s a very interesting thought experiment and if we had the data to support exploring it I’d love to see what we could find. I’d imagine that some subject-matter experts would probably be discovered as being neurodivergent to the surprise of nobody but themselves.

(They probably wouldn’t appreciate opening Pandora’s box!)

Parentheses add emphasis to a sentence or statement. Normally the use of it allows the sentence to be complete with or without it.

Em dashes may also add or increase emphasis but are normally treated as an aside. Think of it as a comment by the author to inject themselves, sometimes in ways which do not form a complete sentence.

For example: When you read this sentence (in your mind) it should feel complete and correct. Perhaps you read in your own voice — something I don’t normally do — or without one at all.

> I don't understand what the issue even is here, and the RFC also doesn't clearly outline it.

The issue is written there but may not make sense unless you know someone who stylistically writes with high-than-average em dash usage. I, for example, get inquiries and comments at work from employees who ask what LLM model I used for “generating these reports” because of the presence of em dashes. They do not believe me when I say not a single word was written by LLMs because, “there’s an em dash. Only LLMs use em dashes!” This is categorically untrue and erodes the authenticity of work from people because of the correlation.

Their aim is to implement a new Unicode character which programs like text editors could inject when a person types an em dash. It attributes to a human being behind the document, typing characters out individually. Actions like copy-pasting text in bulk wouldn’t replace em dashes since it can’t attribute a human as writing it out.

I learned about the em dash in high school and adapted it to my writing style very quickly for analysis and opinion documents. It felt natural given the amount of tangents I can go off into, particularly when including analogies for the reader’s understanding.

I was surprised to find out in my career that it was rarely used by others. Subconsciously I pulled back on how often I used it — especially when it was once suggested that frequent use could imply neurodivergence. Important and lengthy documents which I’d written and published (internally) at work still display them. On occasion there have been comments asking if I’d somehow accessed early AI models to assist in writing these works because of their presence. I think I averaged two em dashes per letter page.

I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core. An LLM is going to reflect one of many writing styles. If today it’s frequent em dash usage, tomorrow it could be frequent parentheses. Swapping Unicode characters becomes a cat-and-mouse game with the cat always two steps behind. The real issue is that the social contract is broken because LLM output is attempted to be passed off as human work. Review and revise that social contract instead to adapt to the existence of the new tools.

If we’re talking the average tech-illiterate to literate-but-cost-and-space-constrained person, probably Blu-Ray. A burner+reader combo with a stack of dual-layer discs is probably cost-effective. High-capacity HDDs would probably be equally effective if you can guarantee that they’re stored away from accidents and mishandling, but if it requires a SATA-to-USB adapter with assembly then it might possibly be out of reach for some consumers, and any risk of damage from movement could rule it out entirely.

If we’re talking tech-savvy consumers who don’t have the IT budget of a corporation, maybe LTO-5 or LTO-6 tapes could work. Tapes themselves are very affordable and have a good shelf lifespan. Used libraries can be had for under $600. The primary issues would be finding one with an interface that works with your existing equipment and software to support tape read and write.

In any case, as long as it’s not directly routable to the internet and there’s a plan to phase it out, probably nothing to get worked up about.

I hope the sound of the drive isn’t particularly bothersome. It’s rather impressive to still be working.