Even before Apple existed Steve Jobs was stealing wages from Steve Wozniak who did the actual work.
We have evidence he was still doing this decades later when he colluded to depress wages with Eric Schmidt at Google when he felt Apple employees were being offered too much in salary.
I'm happy to assume he was stealing money from people at every point in between because he was, quite famously, an asshole.
I mean Apple only survived because very exploitive Microsoft kept them afloat so that Microsoft had someone to point to as competition when the government came around talking about monopolies. So yeah, Apple only exists because a very exploitive corporation propped them up as protection from consequences of that company's exploitation.
No, but I encourage more people to validate these claims themselves if you can afford to do that. If you were token efficient you could get it down to ~$2000 worth of usage which means it's 1 week's worth of x20 usage I just didn't care since they reset limits 3 times now.
There's probably so many more better ways to jailbreak a model, for example in one of my other applications I injected a randomized image into every prompt to cause the classifier to become effectively useless. This appears to be fixed now as they run a seperated classifier for text and image input.
You can't really separate the two, firstly because some parts of the standard library interact directly with the language's syntax (e.g. <initializer_list>), and secondly because the language standard dictates things about the behavior of the standard library that limit implementation options.
For example, the standard says that adding elements to an <unordered_map> is not allowed to invalidate references to keys or elements within the map. That makes it impossible for any standards-compliant C++ implementation to use a high-performance implementation in which keys and elements are stored contiguously in a flat array.
The context of this thread is that someone stated that the C++ standard library sucks, and someone replied to them saying that it's just some implementations that suck, but that's separate from the language. The point I'm trying to make, in response, is that it is about the language. It's not just "some" implementations - there is no implementation of the C++ standard library that doesn't have these inefficiencies, because the language's own standard requires them.
(This is tangential but - this is why I often say that C++ is not actually the most complex language in the world, it's just over-specified. If you took almost any popular programming language and wrote a document dictating the behavior of every single feature and library to the same level of detail, you would end up with a document similar in length or even longer than the C++ standard.)
In my reading, they didn't say it's due to bad implementations, though. They were trying to separate the standard into two parts, the one about the language syntax and semantics, and the one about the standard library. And I think this is a fair separation actually. But that doesn't make the core language any better ;-)
> At this point the corrupted free pointer is called, and control of the instruction pointer is ours.
Very serious, though in practice it doesn't sound like this bug achieves arbitrary RCE on its own (especially in the presence of ASLR). You would need there to be some writable and executable page of memory lying around.
The article glosses over this, but it looks like the next variable in the struct is conveniently the first parameter to the function, so you can run arbitrary code with system() or whatever. But, yeah, you would need some other exploit to defeat ASLR.
You're not wasting your time; LLMs have written plenty of compilers. Compilers are easy for LLMs to work on, because their level of verifiability is very high. That is, an LLM can easily determine whether what a compiler is doing is correct or incorrect.
Automated verifiability goes down once a software project incorporates things like:
Anyone who still even views this as a conservative/liberal issue, is someone who is in the pocket of the fossil fuel lobby. Solar is simply a very cheap and realiable way to generate electricity. Much cheaper than gas and coal nowadays. Pure economic incentive is going to continue to drive its adoption.
As someone from another continent, I giggle when I see doomsday-prepping anti-govmint fiercely-independent cowboys hating EVs and loving gas.
Gas has a 6-month shelf-life, and is attached to a whole geopolitically volatile military-industrial complex. Meanwhile an EV + solar can be actually self-sufficient and last for a decade or two. A realistic Mad Max would have been EV battles over solar panels.
this’ the other Max from China, where they be scavenging leftover panels. The Mad Max we know surely happens somewhere else, and perhaps near Texas given all the participating parties…
Gotta love HN. A commenter does literally nothing other than recommend a book and the top reply is "don't recommend books to him - he's written books, don't you know that?"
I upvoted it - because I loved those two suggestions and have already have them open in another tab. I believe a bunch of others would have done the same.
A lot of crow hunting stories feel cruel to read about, though I wonder why that is.
There is something about intelligence that seems to carry a degree of... moral responsibility, somehow? Though in reality it's just an animal eating another animal, as ever.
Maybe something like this: Most animals hunt in a way that minimizes their odds of getting hurt, to the best of their ability. Crows are pretty smart, and not very strong in the grand scheme of things. So they engage in tactics that look like cruel manipulative pranks; causing the prey to somehow kill itself or get killed by something stronger.
In the end, I think a gazelle doesn’t look up at the lion that killed it by outrunning it and the snapping its neck and say “Ah well, got me fair and square!”
> a gazelle doesn’t look up at the lion that killed it by outrunning it and the snapping its neck
I know this is tangential to your point, but lions don't really hunt that way. They ambush, as they could never outrun a gazelle, and then they don't snap its neck unless unintentionally. They tend to just start eating it while it is still alive. It's quite brutal to watch.
Humans used to hunt animals by chasing them into pits and then punching holes into them with sticks until they bled out not to mention the many kinds of horrible traps for smaller prey animals.
Humane hunting is mostly something that only a rich old guy with his night vision goggles and sniper rifle can afford.
Even for farm animals, many cultures perform their sacrifice in ghastly ways.
Part of the joke is that, in this implementation, the metadata is guaranteed to be larger than the file:
> Now, we all know that it can take a while to find a long sequence of digits in π, so for practical reasons, we should break the files up into smaller chunks that can be more readily found.
> In this implementation, to maximise performance, we consider each individual byte of the file separately, and look it up in π.
Apple was already a multibillion dollar company almost 30 years before the iPhone was invented...
(though I'm sure you will have no trouble inventing some other reason that that wealth, too, was created through exploitation)
reply