Original title is better. "Expands" sounds like they discovered a new use-case. The "news" here is that something that was previously explicitly forbidden is now permitted (at least for the US military).
The timing must be in response to that? Perhaps Facebook is thinking "well, we're obviously not going to sue in Chinese courts, so we may as well loosen that rule for allied nations" ie sort of leveling the asymmetric playing field
TL;DR P0 collaborated with DeepMind to make "Big Sleep," which is an AI agent (using gemini 1.5 pro) that can look through commits, spot potential issues, and then run testcases to find bugs. The agent found one in SQLite that was recent enough that it hadn't made it into an official release yet. They then tried to see if it could have been found with AFL, the fuzzer didn't find the issue after 150 cpu-hours.
Using a fuzzer was a terrible point of comparison. They’re the slowest, heaviest users of resources. They’d be better off comparing to static analyzers which find bugs fast. In this case, Infer might do since it’s designed to catch those errors.
My concept was running a bunch of open-source, static analyzers with the LLM’s essentially blocking false positives. They can do it analytically or by generating the test cases to prove the bug. It might also be easier to fine-tune open models for this since the job is narrower.
>extremely competent and high spirited developers are giving up like this.
I'm pretty sure the median IRC server runs for much less than 7.5 years. I don't think anyone expects volunteers to dedicate decades of their life to admin duty. and it seems fine and healthy for the ecosystem that he is telling people they have a few months to move their bots to a different server.
I didn't read TFA but was there a way to find the migrated bots? honestly, for some quirky reason, the bots are a big chunk of my enjoyment of social media (from Opposum's every hour to randomly generated 3 body simulations of suns in 3d to flight tracking to weather alerts to CO_2 levels), and I have so much enjoyed botsinspace bots since joining mastodon (which is by far the most enjoyable/least addictive/least evil social media I've found).
to be clear- these ministal model are also licensed for commercial use, but not freely licensed for commercial use. and meta also has restrictions on commercial use (have to put “Built with Meta Llama 3” and need to pay meta if you exceed 700 million monthly users)
To my reading, the bitcointalk reply only makes sense as a snarky comment (ie Todd isn't Satoshi). and the fact it was 1.5 hours after the Satoshi post also suggests it wasn't the same person making a quick correction.
Also, at the time petertodd's account was named 'retep' and didn't have any immediately obvious connection to his identity. If there had been a slipup he could have just abandoned the account and certainly not later had it renamed to his legal name!
In my mind all anyone has to do to prove they aren’t Satoshi is prove what they were doing on 2009-01-10 and had no possibility of using an IP from somewhere around Van Nuys California.
Hal Finney and others interacted with Peter Todd as “retep” for more than a decade before the bitcointalk account and post. They would have immediately recognized him.
>“Although X may not be a top priority for most advertisers in Brazil, the platform needs them more than they need it.”
Really does seem like it came down to this point. Musk hoped Brazilian users would get angry with the government, and they just downloaded bluesky instead. Musk lost a month of Brazilian revenue and gained nothing.
I followed some Brazilians on my (mostly unused) bluesky account. Will be interesting to see if they stick around there, return to twitter, or use both.
> Musk hoped Brazilian users would get angry with the government
It’s like when he claimed he’d “document in great detail” how the boycotting advertisers would kill Twitter, and was smugly confident “Earth” would care. Absolutely delusional. The interviewer even understandably struggled with that line of reasoning.
Is that really true? I think platforms have strong network effects that make migrations to alternatives (like Bluesky) very difficult. However, a government shutdown of that platform, with the power/threat of violence, can break through that network effect by making the platform inaccessible to both sides (the people making tweets and their audience).
This shows the true value of the platform to end users is near zero.
Is that really true? I think platforms have strong network effects that make migrations to alternatives (like Bluesky) very difficult.
The network effect has negative value to the user; if the platform went away, everyone would migrate to a better platform, and everyone would be better off. The network effect is an artificial barrier to competition that only benefits the owner of said network, and it only works because collective action is harder than collective inaction.
There’s no technical reason different social media networks couldn’t be made to interoperate. The barriers that keep other platforms from building off of a successful network are largely legal, not natural.
I’m also equating these kinds of network effects with other artificial barriers to competition, like price fixing or mandatory non-compete agreements.
Migrations are indeed difficult but not at all impossible it seems. It feels like a tipping point has been reached and activity of what I would call high quality posters is now at such a level on bluesky that I can’t read it all from the relatively few people I follow. Even my own posts are getting traction that they didn’t until very recently. And people seem to be joining now not only because Musk drove them away but because it’s worth it on its own merits.
The influx of Brazilian users to BlueSky was pretty public(1).
> What's the word for posts like these online?
The word is “post”. When someone writes a thing and puts it online with or without a supporting body of evidence they are engaged in posting.
For example you have posited without evidence that there is a need for a special word for a post without evidence. I don’t know if that claim is true or false but it is, undoubtedly, a post
It is customary to learn the local slang for posts when you’re riding the information superhighway but in a pinch everyone knows what a post is, as it is the product that comes from the process of posters posting.
Sticking to fundamentals can be good when for example a literal insane person tries to tell you that an Xer Xes Xs on X. That’s just not true, nobody believes that wording is right.
If somebody wants to interpret a mundane opinion online as some sort of arcane summoning incantation or volley of memetic warfare that is up to the reader, but “a ton of Brazilians signed up for bluesky” is generally accepted as fact and “it doesn’t seem like the fight with the Brazilian government really accomplished anything” is a pretty understandable opinion that doesn’t require a lot of mental gymnastics or bad faith to arrive at given public information.
It’s just a post. Somebody posted their opinion on the internet. What it becomes inside a specific reader’s mind is neither here nor there
“Speaking as if something is true” is how people often share opinions — especially mundane ones that a person wouldn’t expect to be picked apart
It appears as though GP found the word they were looking for, and would like to call that post a “prayer for the downfall of Elon Musk”… so I’m going to guess that the question was a weird attempt to mask a fandom complaint as a heady question about language, because “Why don’t we have a special word for when people aren’t as nice to Elon as I want them to be?” would sound downright insane
In general, I think you're looking for self-fulfilling prophecy. Hearing the prophecy induces behavior that leads to the prophecy coming true.
Although I'm not sure sigmar's observation fits this criteria as it's a discussion of events that already happened, or that it will be disseminated enough to change the future if you consider it as a prediction of future events should some other widely substitute service cross the Brazilian courts.
Ex-Twitter wasn't the first service to get blocked in Brazil. Brazilians know from experience that if the service they use gets blocked, they should look for a similar service that's not blocked, and get on with their life. When the one they used comes back, they often go back, but it probably depends on relative merits. If you're a competing service, it's a great way to get a lot of exposure, but sometimes the load is too much and you leave a poor impression.
I don’t think any comment anyone makes here is going to will anything into existence.
And it’s a fact that Musk lost Brazilian revenue, gained nothing and that some percentage of users would’ve switched to Bluesky, Threads etc. during the block.
I guess this confirms almost no one understood your original question. There's a phrase that got more popular in the past 5-10 years, but I guess still has pretty limited spread (I don't see it even on urban dictionary):
