Kogasa

Alternating beans in one grinder willy nilly? Do you have any issues with retention?

Any software born after 2025 should be assumed LLM nonsense until proven otherwise. The days of “there’s a working proof of concept so someone must actually have put some thought and effort into it” are gone.

Do harder content and it suddenly becomes a real job. Keys are mostly vibing up to +21s right now and then suddenly you have to keep track of everyone’s defensives and externals and tell them how to use them while also rotating your cds perfectly

Not who you asked, but I want to shill for spaghetti aglio e olio for a sec.

It has 3 ingredients. Pasta, olive oil, garlic. Fancy stuff will taste better, but the cheapest will taste fine. I use pre-minced garlic out of a tub when I’m really down bad and it’s still excellent. Salt, pepper, red pepper flakes, maybe parmesan cheese if you have it, and sometimes I’ll throw in some frozen peas. It comes together in about 2 minutes longer than it takes to boil the pasta and can be really quite good.

I was on your side until I tried to read the article and hit a paywall. Now I’m pro not reading the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractibility_of_unit_sphere_in_Hilbert_space

I can offer no ELI5 but here’s the context

Teto

A Riemannian manifold isn’t necessarily non-Euclidean, it’s just a smooth manifold with a Riemannian metric, which is just sort of a way of defining local geometry in a coherent way. Namely it’s a smooth family of inner products on the tangent spaces at each point, where an inner product on the tangent space is sort of a way of comparing any two directions at a point and the smoothly varying part means that for sufficiently close points, the comparison function on their respective tangent spaces is similar.

Anyway, like “manifold” is a formalism intended to capture the idea of a “shape or space,” a “Riemannian manifold” is just “a shape or space we can do geometry on.”

What?

I don’t support the change. That’s not my point. My point is that if we’re going to argue the dev being threatened isn’t a victim because he’s actively harming privacy, we should be aware that the changes he proposed are not actually harming privacy at all.

You don’t, and you don’t have to fill them in with accurate information, so it isn’t.

As I said, I also object, but you have to realize you’re literally just doing the slippery slope meme unironically. The part that makes it a fallacy is the unjustified assertion that more egregious changes are the inevitable result of the first one, except the first one is materially harmless and in line with existing PII fields in userdb. It’s completely reasonable to expect systemd to go no further than it already has.

No, it literally just can’t violate your privacy in any way. You have complete control over what, if anything, is placed in that field. No information about you can be gained or disclosed by virtue of the systemd change alone. You can think it’s a bad change because it signals intent to follow a trend of supporting privacy-invading age verification, but you can’t say this specific change in itself is privacy-invading.

“user is likely accessing service from a *nix device” isn’t PII. of course anything can be used for fingerprinting, but this type of “leak” is about as insignificant as it gets. It’s not what most people would consider a violation of their privacy.

It may be inconsequential in a literal sense if the law isn’t enforced meaningfully, which is probably pretty likely. I don’t really care what California law says and I doubt they’ll try to convince me.

Do you think that would prevent or discourage age verification software from existing? It’s not as if a systemd user field is the only place a user’s birthday could be stored.

Realistically, age verification software that is seriously attempting age verification isn’t even going to touch the systemd field, because why would it? The field could only be trusted if it is managed by an age verification service anyway, in which case the service could just as easily store the data outside of systemd.

what is stopping him

The pull request approval process? It’s quite easy to recognize that one change is harmless and another is not. The slope is not THAT slippery.

I completely understand objecting to the systemd change, I also object, but acting like the fascists have already won is a bit crazy.

Adding birthday fields is not privacy invading in itself.

I think it’s more likely that consciousness is special and LLMs aren’t conscious.

If current LLMs are conscious then consciousness is a worthless and pathetic concept.