100 W sockets? All the flights I've been on that provided power have had a really low current USB A port that can barely keep my phone from discharging when the screen is on.
Even though it's called "T9 Speed Test", it seems to default to T9 being off, and you have to actually click on the T9 link at the top right to enable it. Really confusing at first!
It's not real Python. It's essentially a made-up language that resembles a subset of Python.
That said, if I was building a small ugly toy Python implementation, I would probably also not implement long integers. Or the power operator. At least not in the first iteration.
> But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.
B) A mathematician working for Anthropic solved a problem mathematicians have been working on for more than a century, and then credited it to Claude for PR purposes
If you believe B is more likely, why would you then believe a proof in the form of a chat log, when said chat log could itself have been faked by Anthropic way more easily than solving the mathematical problem in the first place?
While I agree that we need the inputs to properly evaluate what this means for LLM capabilities, I don't really believe that the amount of knowledge input matters much for the overall significance of the result.
These kinds of results are interesting for LLMs because mathematicians have been working on them for decades. If the result doesn't already exist, there's no way it's in the training data, and if mathematicians have been unsuccessfully tackling the problem for decades, it is believable that the use of a new tool made the result possible, even if guided by a great mathematician.
Yes, of course, that would be interesting info to have. I just mean that from what we have already we can reasonably infer that the LLM played a role in the result being obtained.
If I am not mistaken, all of the flurry of novel results has come from existing mathematicians. This makes me suspect that the models aren't at the level where just any layman can get results. They require a skilled human in the loop to keep them on the rails and to properly explore the solution space.
> if rustc emits machine code and then cargo immediately executes it, there's the same opportunity for end user memory being corrupted (due to miscompilation) as if rustc and cargo shared a code base
Your tests run in an entirely separate process from the compiler (and from cargo). This makes it very different from memory corruption in the compiler:
- The test process can only corrupt its own memory.
- You don't need "unsafe" to run tests. Just the ability to start another process.
- If you're cross-compiling, you wouldn't even be able to run the tests on the same machine (without emulation/compatibility layers)
Does roc run tests in the same process as the compiler?
> Does roc run tests in the same process as the compiler?
We do for tests of pure functions, yes.
> Your tests run in an entirely separate process from the compiler (and from cargo).
That's a great point and a relevant distinction, although Rust tests can run arbitrary I/O, so it's not like having them be in a separate process means memory corruption is harmless! :)
True, but not sure how it's relevant - you don't need memory corruption for the test to perform arbitrary I/O. And even if you trust the tests to not do anything bad, you don't need memory corruption for this to be an issue - any bug in the code emitted by the compiler could cause bad things to happen.
But all of this is ultimately completely unrelated to the concept of "unsafe". You can delete your home directory just fine in safe Rust/Go/Python/etc. You can write a compiler that emits broken code in the same languages; even in a 100% pure functional language with 0 side effects and a perfect bug-free implementation.
I think you're misunderstanding what they are saying. They don't use background location data, but they do use your current location data. Try the "Find My Train" demo on their site - it asks for location permission.
Or their API - it also expects device location data:
> At a minimum, requests to the detect endpoint _must_ contain a device's location measurement. Additional fields can be included where available to improve the accuracy of the returned results as outlined below.
You are giving it to them. That's why the demo asks for your location permission, and that's why the API expects location info.
"You" here means another app that integrates their API (or you as an individual using the demo on their website). How the other app gets it is up to the other app - ideally it also just queries it directly and requires location permission.
Not sure how you came to that conclusion. An empty train would still exist in the live train data. It does not depend on mobile phones, but on rail signals and other such tracking built into the rail infrastructure.
The location of the train comes from trackside sensors and is available as a free API. It doesn't give actual lat/lon – it only shows when it went past a particular checkpoint. The part that needs location permission is the one that works out which train you are on. It doesn't use that to produce the main map, it's just to work out which train you are likely to be on.
It's annoying, but thankfully it's a single checkbox in the settings to disable it (uncheck "Suggestions from sponsors").
reply