sus, sus@programming.dev

I promise that if Sam Altman is sent to (above minimum-security) prison for piracy, I will not complain about copyright law a single time until the day he is released.

Cryptography is hard and programmers are notoriously really really really bad at it.

I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.

These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.

early 1980s - Mark V. Shaney

2015 - r/subredditsimulator

2025 - AI independently sends the creator of Mark V. Shaney a sloptastic “thank you” email, who is not very happy about it

2026 - moltbook

maybe they were looking for extra special characters like 🁄 or ⶸ. Who am I kidding, RFC 1738 tells us that literally everything is unsafe and you know, we need to prepare for the inevitable occasion when the password somehow ends up inside an URL.

The characters “<” and “>” are unsafe because they are used as the delimiters around URLs in free text;
the quote mark (""") is used to delimit URLs in some systems.
The character “#” is unsafe
The character “%” is unsafe

It ends up with

Thus, only alphanumerics, the special characters
$ - _ . + ! * ' ( ) ,
are safe

Were you hoping for expedition 33?

They said “a single” face so probably not the strikeface.

It hardly even needs to be demonstrated, most WAIS variants are explicitly designed to contain tests for “general information acquired from culture” and knowledge of vocabulary.

It’s been maintained for over 10 years by now so it shouldn’t be going anywhere.

counterpoint:

The first reliably documented report of Psilocybe semilanceata intoxication involved a British family in 1799, who prepared a meal with mushrooms they had picked in London’s Green Park

Sorry for the following somewhat disproportionate aggression

Searle said

I feel somewhat embarrassed to give even this answer to the systems theory because the theory seems to me so unplausible to start with. The idea is that while a person doesn’t understand Chinese, somehow the conjunction of that person and bits of paper might understand Chinese. It is not easy for me to imagine how someone who was not in the grip of an ideology would find the idea at all plausible

As I was reading this I was screaming silently: YOU invented the chinese room. It was ENTIRELY YOUR IDEA to come up with a ridiculous, unphysical, implausible thought experiment where a single human somehow does the task of millenia in the span of minutes.
And now you object that it seems implausible???

Millenia is very optimistic by the way. If you tried to simulate chatgpt with paper and a pen, it would take much, much longer than that.
AND THE PIECE OF JUNK STILL WOULDN’T EVEN GET THE CHINESE CHARACTERS RIGHT.

Author echoes my thoughts by calmly stating:

Searle simply puts the cart before the horse. Let the high speed men with paper, pencil, and rubber commence using their rulebook to carry on a conversation, whether in Chinese or any other language, and then we can discuss the metaphysical implications.”

Motherfucker, Sartre has set the cart on fire and shot the horse, and you are contemplating whether to dance on the remains!
Ok, ok, maybe it metaphysically makes sense. But you’re exhaustively drawing a connection between the metaphysical and the practical! Now it can’t make sense!

Interrogate our intuitions with one centillion shrimp.
incoherent screeching

Rendering is not what you are doing server side.

No shit sherlock. Rendering requires information about the game, and that information is enough to allow cheating. Aimbots don’t need to perform “invalid actions” in order to wreck a game. They just need to be faster and more accurate than most human players. Trying to heuristically detect aimbots is also commonly used alongside other anticheat methods, it just doesn’t work (unless you have people manually reviewing individual reported cheaters, but companies try to avoid that because it’s expensive and risks false positives).

Ultimately you either have basically google stadia (with all its technical problems) or you are trusting the client to render the game.

Even if the client only has exactly the absolute minimum amount of information needed to draw all the things that are visible, that still allows a cheat to see the player coordinates and the coordinates of visible entities, which usually makes eg. an aimbot trivial to make.

“Never trust the client” renders entire genres of games inaccessible for a big corporation. But those genres have billions of dollars of potential profit in them. So they will go as far as they can to make the client almost trustable. The average player of a first-person shooter doesn’t really think about the implications of kernel-level anticheat at all so it’s not a hard choice for them. 95% of them are on windows after all and that already gives kenel access to their PC to some entity they really have no good reason to trust.

Saying it before something that is not disrespectful would be redundant at best and very confusing at worst.

“With all due respect, how’s the weather today?"
“I’m not racist but I prefer tea over coffee."
“I’m not a pedophile but I think terminator 3 is a bad movie.”

Those 3,028 people, or 0.000036% of the global population, hold more than 99% of all wealth.

The actual number is closer to 9% than 99%. This is probably some kind of mutation from “the combined wealth of billionaires is larger than the GDP of 99% of countries” where notably yearly income and wealth are not directly comparable.

Better (and true) things to say are “The global top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 95% combined” or “The richest 0.01% in the US have tripled their wealth in the last 30 years, while 90% of people have been treading water”

it’s

while (true) {
    let t = Date.now();
    if (timeoutMap.has(t)) timeoutMap[t]();
}

of course. Clearly O(n).

I guess it’s meant to say “threadiverse’s finest”

Probably

So I wondered a bit how much it actually affects the economy.

“S&P 500” companies’ market cap is about 57 trillion dollars with a P/E ratio of about 30. So openai by itself is dragging down the total s&p 500 earnings by only about 0.5%. The bigger problem is that there are multiple companies like openAI, and a large chunk of the entire economy’s valuation is tied to the promise that all the AI companies will somehow become profitable sometime soon.