To be really honest, they can take a look at bao. (I used it for an eerily similar project like this one though its great that this is receiving traction! I Do feel like scuttlebutt protocol might be good implementation for most use cases as well)
Bao allows us to have a common hash for the first n contents of the term and then they can still have common hash so you can just loop it over each continuous word to see how much commonly (long?) their hash is and the length becomes the amount similar
Some issue might come where if the word changes in the start and the rest is similar but I feel like bao could/does support that as well. My information on bao is pretty rusty (get the pun? It's written in rust) but I am sure that this idea is technically possible & I hope someone experienced in the field could tell more about it
https://github.com/oconnor663/bao, Oconnor's bao's video or documentaries on youtube are so good, worth a watch & worth a star (though they do mention that its a little less formally cryptographically solved iirc but its still pretty robust imo)
True! That would be a more powerful approach. Here I kept it quite basic since I was not very familiar with the tooling. I do apply lowercasing of text + some whitespace stripping in order to increase the number of collisions a bit.
Edit: any other "quick hacks" to increase the number of collisions are welcome :)
Yeah, convert to embedding, check if it's within a certain distance to an existing embedding and if so store it with that cluster and increment? Then check check further entries against against an average so clusters don't increase their "reach" indefinitely.
That is a problem Also a long paragraph would likely never be hashed the same because of a comma or capital letter and so the builder of this would need to cap the length of the thought and make all thoughts lower case without punctuation
i agree removing punctuation wouldve been a good idea alas it may be a bit too late since that would modify the hash of previous inputs in the future hmm but i will think about it
There is some good stuff here, which is why I am still here. But if you look at the comments on certain topics you can see there are truly awful human beings here that are not being banned. That keeps it from being the best.
I happen to agree in this principle, but for most of human history it would have been considered a radical idea. Much of the world still doesn't fully buy into it. It's a philosophical position, not a universal truth. You need to persuade, not force. Banning people is not the answer, provided they are communicating in good faith.
> If someone’s opinion is that not all human lives have equal value, then yes it does make them awful.
FWIW, it’s a little more nuanced.
Do all human lives have equal intrinsic moral worth? Many, though not all ethical systems say yes. I think this is the case you’re thinking of.
Are all lives valued equally in decisions, emotions, or outcomes?
If all lives are truly equal, how do we justify medical triage? War? Immigration limits? Prioritizing children over the elderly? Choosing to save your family over strangers?
If lives are not equal, on what basis do we rank them without sliding into cruelty or abuse?
There’s no fully stable resolution to this tension and every society lives with it.
The best way to preserve something is not with technology or any particular storage medium.
The only way to ensure something is preserved is for there to be living humans who care about the thing enough to put forth the effort to preserve it.
Information that is stored in very fragile old formats is well preserved because there are living humans who are putting forth the effort. Information that nobody cares about, but is stored very securely, will be culled eventually as even libraries and archives have limited capacity.
If you want your personal website to be preserved, the best thing you can do is make it so good that your children, or someone else, cares about it enough to keep it.
This is coming from a group that does analysis on the semiconductor and cloud industries and provided very expensive access to their models and info. They are the citation.
So I guess it’s not a bubble then since these companies are raking in the big revenues? Or maybe they are counting all those circular investments as revenues somehow?
Fair enough, but it has been stated over and over that OpenAI's (as well as others) plan for profit is subscriptions. If their revenue predictions are based on that, then like others have said, it is mathematically impossible.
Have you considered that the industry analysis might be a biased source since they are all in on a economic model that must grow at all costs or it collapses? Do you trust McKinsey consulting because they give industry analysis? Blind trust in these corporate entities is how we get Enron, WorldCom, and an opioid crisis.
But hey, I'm just some asshole on the internet. Carry on.
Even if that’s true, that seems like a putrid number, no?
Assuming a single 1GW the data center runs 24/7 365, it’s consuming 8.76 TwH per year. Only being able to generate $10-$12B in revenue (not profit) per year while consuming as much electricity as the entire state of Hawaii (1.5M people) seems awful.
If you do the math, that's $10-$12 per watt year. There's approx 24×365.25=8766 hours in a year, so assuming that the datacenters would be running 24×7, that boils down to $1.14 to $1.37 in revenue per kWh. That's not a bad deal if power really is a major part of the expense.
As far as I can tell, power isn't actually a major part of the expense, it's dwarfed by the capex. Just the amortization on the GPU will be an order of magnitude higher than the cost of the power to run the GPU at 100%. (Assuming a 5 year depreciation period.)
The cops made this list. The idea that a smartphone can do everything a Raspberry Pi can do, and more, is a concept so far beyond their level of understanding that the discussion is pointless.
Sibling comments have good points but in addition: there are a great many legitimate reasons to bring a phone to the inauguration and many fewer legitimate reasons to bring a Raspberry Pi. These guidelines aim to reduce risk, not remove it entirely.
Since NYC repealed its anti-mask law during Covid, that's no longer something that can be taken for granted. In another thread it came out that radio jammers weren't banned. It would fit in with the humor of it all if ski masks weren't banned.
I think someone or a group really motivated to cause harm will laugh at these rules.
Just an anecdote but I was screened several times in the airports (more after 9/11 because of... face) but never caught a pepper spray or other prohibited non obvious items carried accidentally.
This is not really accurate though. Both a Raspberry Pi and a Flipper Zero can easily and readily be turned into a signal jammer or spammer with off the shelf parts and nearly no technical skill. Modern smartphones are generally both more locked down and also don't come with an external antenna option.
> Modern smartphones are generally both more locked down and also don't come with an external antenna option.
There are USB On-the-Go compatible SDRs [1] that you can hook up to an Android phone that cost like $50 (don't know if there are any that would work with iOS though).
Even if this could jam signals, which a sibling comment attests that it cannot, I wouldn't be surprised if it gets flagged by security if you try to bring it in and hook it up to your phone
Readily turned into a signal jammer? Do you know this or are you just guessing? Raspis are SBCs not tricorders from star trek.
In terms of actual knowledge, wifi chips, like the one on your laptop or a raspi do not have software settings for that. They are predominately defined by hardware and by opaque binary blobs the kernel developers have their hands full reverse engineering compatible interfaces for. In addition, electrical interference far beyond what a tiny communications radio is capable of can come from dangerous items such as microwaves, electric motors and nine volt batteries plus spools of wire.
Literally the first result on Google gives a simple to use jammer that works out of the box. Hook up an external antenna and you're good to go. Plenty of more sophisticated options if you dig a bit more.
Like the article asks, why ban these two specific brand name devices? If you're worried about signal jammers, why not communicate that you're banning, oh, I don't know, "signal jammers"?
Any mobile computer can be easily and readily turned into a signal jammer/spammer with an off-the-shelf SDR. There is nothing particularly special about the Raspberry Pi. I didn't see laptops on the list.
Some smartphones are locked down by their vendors. There's plenty of options to get full root access on something that's for all intents and purposes a smartphone, especially if you don't particularly care about warranty and/or keeping commerical apps functional.
The radio on all commercially available smartphones are locked down to meet regulatory requirements and runs on an entirely different CPU from the Android OS that you might have root on.
True but they are commonly used to control other non-consumer (e.g. unregulated) radios via GPIO, and in POCs for threat exploitation demonstrations which are all over YouTube for idiots to mimic... and unlike phones they aren't carried around by almost everyone on a daily basis.
I can host a wifi router and a Raspberry Pi with a web server that then connect to my phone regardless of OS and now I can run anything remotely. You cannot lock down any OS that has a browser and wifi. I don't need root, just under $50 worth of equipment.
It is trivial to get an older, unlocked cell phone that you can root. You then have a device equally or more powerful than a Raspberry Pi with built-in radios.
Who cares how well the businesses do? Only the wealthy in the US benefit from that. I’ll gladly swap and go to Europe where I don’t have to worry about falling into medical debt if I am unlucky.
Europe is increasingly heading in this direction too, at least it is here in the UK. The lobbiests and their stooge populists are increasingly in charge here too.
reply