Wow, I went to read the article and completely forgot you said "same domain". I was fooled for a while and couldn't believe I'd never heard of it before. Very facinating indeed. It'd be pretty wild if that stuff was real :)
It took me a while to understand that it was fiction too. I spent a few minutes anxiously pondering if I could somehow have overlooked one of the most important cryptographic event in decades. It's very well made.
The twist of Rokos Basilisk is that it is an info hazard: it only is dangerous if one knows about it. Like a dark cult of Cthulhu who only conjures the elder god so they have the mercy to be eaten first.
I think it is silly, but there are people anxious about it, which is not true about Pascals Wager.
>> The twist of Rokos Basilisk is that it is an info hazard: it only is dangerous if one knows about it.
Actually, it's only dangerous if one believes in it. Which is why it can't really work: a superintelligent AI would assume nobody is gullible enough to actually believe it, like, for real.
> I think it is silly, but there are people anxious about it, which is not true about Pascals Wager.
There's reason to be anxious about Pascal's Wager: assuming one holds a charitable view of the historicity of religious texts then Pascal's Wager is very rational - but one might feel social pressure to not be religious - or more likely: social pressure to hold a particular religion) - and just procrastination to get-around-to-researching-this-whole-religion-thing, so the uncertainty and lack of confidence in ones' own actions can lead to anxiety like that.
"unicode on punch cards" in the Abyss, should clearly point to UTF-EBCDIC [0] and not just EBCDIC [1]. UTF-EBCDIC is probably one of the most exotic unicode formats, and I don't believe it is used much anymore, if it ever were.
GHC 7.2 using Unicode to represent file paths on Linux (where paths are arbitrary bytes), an approach which was further explored in GHC 7.4 by using reserved codepoints.
\u vs \U escapes in languages that added Unicode support before the codepoint space was expanded beyond 16 bits.
After reading “There’s no elegant solution to FizzBuzz”, immediately had to check how I might try to be unnecessarily clever if I had to do it in Python and arrived at:
for i in range(1, 100):
divisible_by_3 = i % 3 == 0
divisible_by_5 = i % 5 == 0
fizz = 'Fizz' if divisible_by_3 else ''
buzz = 'Buzz' if divisible_by_5 else ''
num = '' if divisible_by_3 or divisible_by_5 else i
print "{0}{1}{2}".format(fizz, buzz, num)
(In reality, of course, I would likely have had to look up the modulo operator first.)
While I like to think the opposite, I can see myself using || with an empty string occasionally (at least with TS, where I can be reasonably sure the variable will definitely be a string at runtime). However, concatenating strings with + is a bit implicit to my taste.
Here's a (perhaps "unnecessarily clever") Python 3 version I wrote a while back, for some reason:
import functools
def fizzbuzz(n):
if not n % 3: yield (r := "fizz")
if not n % 5: yield (r := "buzz")
if not "r" in locals(): yield n
compose = lambda f, g: lambda *args: f(g(*args))
functions = "".join, functools.partial(map, str), fizzbuzz
transform = functools.reduce(compose, functions)
print("\n".join(map(transform, range(1, 100))))
I've always thought that an elegant solution wouldn't iterate by ones, but would instead increment the correct amount between each print statement... 0+3+2+1+3+1+2+3+3+2+...
The Birth and Death of Javascript (near the end of the bottom of the iceberg) has played a big role in my life and I expect it to be relevant far into the future.
There are a large number of specialized devices that used to have custom touchscreens - and many MANY of them are much more reliable now that they just have an iPad stuck in there instead.
I really didn't get this and Google search comes up with nichts. Maybe cause I'm in Germany so it doesn't ring a special bell to Google. Explainer someone?
oh god, I'll never forget /usr/bin/[. I wasted too many God damn hours trying to understand why nothing was working... To this day I still curse whoever decided to call it that way.
"Fonts can be malicious" made me think of security vulnerabilities in font engines that can be exploited remotely by untrusted websites through things like webfonts. That doesn't necessarily involve Turing completeness, just some bogus memory handling in a font library written in C for instance.
Yes because you have no idea if it's going to result in the stack overwriting the heap. On many compilers it's just a macro that decrements the stack pointer by the value in the argument. You really shouldn't ever use it.
IIRC, there's a protected page between the stack and the heap, where any reads or writes will `kill -SEGV` the program. With regular function calls, you'll be advancing the stack pointer slowly enough to guarantee a hit on that page. With alloca(), you can move the stack pointer in larger steps, thus missing that page.
(The lowest few pages of memory are protected in the same way to increase the likelihood that a NUL pointer correctly blows up in your face when you try to access its memory.)
I feel the order up to the Bottom of the iceberg is roughly correct, and anything below that is almost randomly ordered. For example I don't think GCJ-02 and Mario Wolczko's unix recovery is that obscure.
I have the feeling that the whole iceberg only exists for us to click on this very article (as both share the same domain)
[1] https://qntm.org/mmacevedo
I think it is silly, but there are people anxious about it, which is not true about Pascals Wager.
Actually, it's only dangerous if one believes in it. Which is why it can't really work: a superintelligent AI would assume nobody is gullible enough to actually believe it, like, for real.
There's reason to be anxious about Pascal's Wager: assuming one holds a charitable view of the historicity of religious texts then Pascal's Wager is very rational - but one might feel social pressure to not be religious - or more likely: social pressure to hold a particular religion) - and just procrastination to get-around-to-researching-this-whole-religion-thing, so the uncertainty and lack of confidence in ones' own actions can lead to anxiety like that.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-EBCDIC
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBCDIC
Decoders that try to restart on unexpected byte sequences: https://john-millikin.com/%F0%9F%A4%94/case-report-surugaya-...
GHC 7.2 using Unicode to represent file paths on Linux (where paths are arbitrary bytes), an approach which was further explored in GHC 7.4 by using reserved codepoints.
\u vs \U escapes in languages that added Unicode support before the codepoint space was expanded beyond 16 bits.
[0]: https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/about-the-boot.ini-issue
1. mitigate ASAP (pull or fix the update)
2. Make customers whole (anyone affected should be fixed no matter the hassle or cost - paying for Geek Squad is brilliant)
3. Determine how testing could have caught it and didn’t (does your CI include rebooting? Nonstandard configurations?)
4. Remove overlapping filenames
5. Be open about all the above
Immutable distributed histories are all susceptible to the “encoded illegal content” and I don’t know how they’ll end up resolving it.
I was not disappointed.
> Meanwhile, we want there to be at most one place that outputs fizz, buzz, or the string representation, and each test to be performed only once.
These do intuitively seem like the properties of an elegant solution.
I think it is an elegant solution.
https://github.com/tandav/pipe#fizzbuzz
Seeing it done with a GBA is not surprising.
I couldn't find that on the link?
This the text editor?
>LISP, or manual garbage collect
This Lisp Machine garbage collection = reboot?
(The lowest few pages of memory are protected in the same way to increase the likelihood that a NUL pointer correctly blows up in your face when you try to access its memory.)