I'm not a Spotify user myself so you're welcome to disregard my opinion.
My point is that the UI should be designed for what people actually want to do instead of just grabbing whatever they happen to have that's closest to almost working but not quite.
And dragging is horrible UX for "pinning" songs that are fifteen pages down.
I’ve finally started using agents. This week I got the 00s to eliminate a secret weapons program which was started by the Soviets back in the 80s. Nobody told me how easy this was going to be. Foreign policy is solved
It's a bit complicated, but you can use other compilers to test for backdoors.
Lets suppose you have the source code to GCC, an old version of GCC that may contain a backdoor, and a different compiler such as Clang that you don't expect* to have the same set of backdoors.
First, you compile the source code with the old GCC and then use the output** of that to compile the source code again.
Second, you compile the source code with Clang and then use the output of that to compile the source code yet again.
Then you can compare the final output of both of those chains. If they are identical there isn't a backdoor unique to the GCC binary you started with.***
--
* There's no guarantee that Clang doesn't also have the same backdoors as GCC, but instead of Clang you could use any other C compiler(s), or even write your own C compiler in assembly or Python or whatever.
** The output of the old GCC and Clang will be different, but the binaries they produce should have the same behavior and therefore identical output. Since the backdoor doesn't necessarily change other types of programs but is by necessity propagated to the compiler itself, the self-compiled binary is used for the comparison.
*** Technically you could do something similar with Rust by bootstrapping from previous versions all the way back to OCaml, but you would have to audit the source code for the whole chain.
Writing your own compiler is a much more reliable and easier way to guarantee a lack of backdoors in the bootstrap chain, and my understanding is that the C spec is much less complicated than Rust.
"writing code to solve a problem" used to have "understanding the problem" as a prerequisite. but vibecoding allows solution-shaped objects to be produced without any of the hard-won understanding. beware of solution-shaped objects.
@romanhelmetguy@GirardHolistic People always say “everyone has always said things are getting worse than they were”, as if that isn’t the most terrifying statement of all time.
Ok, this is absurd.
You can choreograph a complex action scene in Blender with basic shapes, then let Seedance make it real.
You need to try this AI filmmaking workflow:
1. Generate a start frame in Midjourney
2. Block out the action in Blender
3. Feed both to Seedance
My Blender reference was just rough timing, camera shake, and spatial choreography, and Seedance tracked the speed, motion, and action way better than I expected.
This is the difference between describing a shot and directing one.
@nosilverv I assume it only shows up in your notifications when the instance they like was shown to them specifically because you reposted it, so you can't just repost something to get a list of everyone who happens to like it afterwards.
I remember a study once, a computer simulation of a dog park. They wanted to know what would happen if just 5% of dog owners didn't pick up their dog's poop. In no time at all, the simulated dog park became nothing but poop, from even a tiny amount not doing their duty. So they wondered, hey, why aren't real dog parks entirely covered in poop? So they studied it. Most pick up their own dog's poop, a few never pick up poop, and a rare few, pick up their own dog's poop, AND whatever other poop they see nearby lying around. We all live in the grace of someone else's gift and never even know.
No, deciphering language and breaking cryptography are very different kinds of problems.
This language happens to be hard because we don't know other languages that are close enough to easily infer meanings, and we don't have a Rosetta Stone with the same thing written in both Linear A and a language we know.
But, unlike good cryptography, once we do figure out a few words it becomes much easier to infer the meanings of other words.
I think people can sometimes see a courageous character and assume they're evil because they don't have a good+courageous template
and if values you hold because you think they are good (and maybe they even are good sometimes) tend to result in obviously bad things when you see them wielded courageously (IRL or in stories) you can accidentally associate courage itself with evil
I convince you “comparative advantage” is real and that you’re comparatively better at growing wine and I’m better at manufacturing.
Year 1: You produce 10k barrels of wine, I produce a couple cars.
Year 100: You produce 10k barrels of wine, I produce 10M space lasers.