dragonfly4933

I don't think calling hallucinations a bug is strictly wrong, but it's also not working as intended. The intent is defined by the developers or the company, and they don't want hallucinations because that reduces the usefulness of the models.

I also don't think we know that it is a fact that this is a problem that can't be solved in current technology, we simply have not found any useful solution.

Ghostty has scrollback, I have no idea what that person is talking about. I think it is missing scroll bars, but you can scroll using the mouse wheel or shift+pgup/dn. The buffer is also not very big by default but I think it can be changed via config file.

It is generally considered a bad idea to use envs for passing secrets in general since envs for process n are available to other processes which have access and permission.

Comparing python to rust, rust has far fewer breaking updates than python, and thats a fact. Feature updates can and do break older code in python, whereas in rust this is simply not allowed with few exceptions.

The language is allowed to change in compatible ways with editions. Every few years a new edition is released which allows otherwise breaking changes to be implemented, but the old and new code can still work together. Developers can rev the edition version when they want. I also think cargo might be able to help upgrade to a new edition as well.

Rust isn’t perfect, but python fails to learn the lessons that even perl implemented decades ago.

To be honest, I never heard of it, and it is interesting, but the language isn't the only factor, it's the ecosystem as well. It says it's an alternative to C, so I will just assume it can consume C libraries. But that still leaves you with using C libraries, which is not a great position to be in if you are looking to not use C.

If you are looking for something that is actually in use, but not rust, look into Zig. Still would need to use a lot of C libraries, but it at least looks like it has momentum. Not to mention they seek to completely replace libc, which would actually be useful and an achievement, since that is the biggest problem C actually has.

I am a rust fan myself, but if you are new to programming it's not a great place to start due to its' learning cliff.

What exactly is your claim? I can perhaps infer you are trying to make the claim that no people were killed in Tiananmen Square? Maybe this is true, but it is sidestepping the fact that most of the sources you link to state that the PLA killed people in or around Tiananmen Square in response to political activity.

I am not plugged into this community, so I have no idea what the purpose of your post is, but I can dig into the linked articles and find specific quotes that confirm that the PLA killed people around the area.

Governments in general employ tactics that find pointless, incorrect, or inconsequential inconsistencies to try to poke holes in inconvenient narratives, which is what I suspect the line of quotes is about.

I will admit, I learned something today. I learned that people were not killed IN the square, but OUTSIDE the square.

Does it really matter if the government killed people in the square or outside the square? The fact is, they killed people extrajudicially, at least according to your links.

Telegraph:

The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and released exclusively by The Daily Telegraph, partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square.

Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing, as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city.

You quote

CBS NEWS: “We saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances, or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a “massacre” had occurred in [Tiananmen Square]”

From the very same article:

Some have found it uncomfortable that all this conforms with what the Chinese government has always claimed, perhaps with a bit of sophistry: that there was no "massacre in Tiananmen Square."

But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.

You quote:

BBC NEWS: “I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square”

That text does not exist in the linked article. You changed it without any indication that you did it.

Here is the actual text:

Such was the case with the massacre in Beijing on 3 and 4 June, 1989. I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night.

We got the story generally right, but on one detail I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square.

Your text from NY Times:

NY TIMES: In June 13, 1989, NY Times reporter Nicholas Kristof – who was in Beijing at that time – wrote, “State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the [Tiananmen] square shortly after dawn as proof that they [protesters] were not slaughtered.” In that article, he also debunked an unidentified student protester who had claimed in a sensational article that Chinese soldiers with machine guns simply mowed down peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Here you are trying to emphasize the claim “[protesters] were not slaughtered”? You make no specific statement, so I can only respond with this quote from the same article.

State television has even shown film of students marching peacefully away from the square shortly after dawn as proof that they were not slaughtered. The disagreement is partly one about the definition of the square. … Troops fired on civilians in many parts of the city, but the shooting was concentrated along the Avenue of Eternal Peace, or Changan Avenue, which runs on the north side of the square. There was heavy shooting in the Muxidi district to the west of Tiananmen Square, and there were also many casualties along the Avenue of Eternal Peace to the immediate east of the square, as well as on streets to the south of the square.

This reporter saw troops fire on and kill people on the Avenue of Eternal Peace on the northern part of the square as well as some who were on a segment of the square just north of the avenue, near the Tiananmen Gate. But there is no firm indication that troops fired on the students occupying the monument in the middle of the square.

Reuters:

As to body count: I saw several people, young men, lying on flatbed tricycles being carried away from the square. They were inert and covered in blood. Dead or wounded, I have no idea. On the afternoon of June 4, I saw people fall on Changan Avenue as troops opened fire on them. I have no idea if they were wounded, killed, or simply fainting.

How many people died that night in Beijing? What was the price of the years of superficial political stability that followed?

Most of the killing did not take place on or near the Square, that is clear. The official line, first espoused by Communist Party propaganda guru Yuan Mu a couple of nights later on national television, was that 23 people had died on the night of June 3/4. It was ludicrous. Nobody who was in Beijing at that time believed it.

Wikileaks:

6. THE GALLOS POSITIONED THEMSELVES NEAR THE RED CROSS STATION AT THE FOOT OF THE STEPS TO THE MUSEUM. INITIALLY NOT MUCH WAS HAPPENING IN THE SQUARE AS MOST OF THE FIGHTING WAS TAKING PLACE TO THE WEST. BODIES AND WOUNDED, HOWEVER, BEGAN TO ARRIVE AT THE RED CROSS STATION INDICATING THE EXTENT OF THE FIGHTING AND THE FACT THAT REAL BULLETS WERE BEING USED. AS THE MILITARY BEGAN TO REACH THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE SQUARE AND SHOTS WERE FIRED IN THE VICINITY OF THE RED CROSS STATION, MRS. GALLO DECIDED SHE WANTED TO LEAVE. THE GALLOS MADE THEIR WAY BACK TO THEIR CAR AND DROVE BACK TO THEIR APARTMENT IN SANLITUN. GALLO DROPPED OFF HIS WIFE AND DROVE BACK TO THE SQUARE, AGAIN PARKING EAST OF THE MUSEUM.

I thought this article was a fun read: https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/

On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. Aerial pictures of conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the [Chinese] government’s arguments that the troops were victims, not executioners. Other scenes show soldiers’ corpses and demonstrators stripping automatic rifles off unresisting soldiers,” admitted the Washington Post in a story that was favorable to anti-government opposition on June 12, 1989.

This is not flattering to the PLA, that they let 100 vehicles get torched by some random ad hoc insurrection in their own capital.

Maybe, but i never mentioned years into the future. Of course technology will improve. The hardware will get better and more effcient, and the algorithms and techniques will improve.

But as it stands now, i still think what i said is true. We obviously don’t have exact numbers, so i can only speculate.

Having lots of memory is a big part of inference, so I was going to reply to you that prices of memory stopped going down at a similar historical rate, but i found this, which is interesting

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historical-cost-of-computer-memory-and-storage?time=2020..latest

The cost when down by about 0.1x from 2000 to 2010. 2010-2020 it was only about 0.23x. 2020-2023 shows roughly another halving of the price, which is still a pretty good rate.

The available memory is still only one part. The speed of the memory and the compute connected to it also plays a big part in how these current systems work.

Of the things people complain about that systemd brings in, this is among the least offensive. It makes sense for an init system to provide such functionality, the function of spawning new system processes.

Additionally, in modern systems it doesn’t make sense to use such features. Spawning a new process per request or on demand doesn’t gain you much and does reduce performance.

Spawning new processes on most OS is pretty slow compared to other operations. Additionally, there would also be an increase in latency as the new process needs to be loaded, whereas most software these days can handle the new request in more efficient ways.

I think you can also try to reuse the same process for multiple requests, stopping it only once it has been quiet for a while. But this still doesn’t really help much.

Historically, i think it was used to try to save memory. But today its a bigger nusance than it is worth. I just checked how much memory sshd is using, and i think it is less than 10mb.

total kB 8508 6432 1160

And to be clear, you theoretically can’t save much if any memory doing this because you must have enough memory available to be able to run the process, otherwise bad things will happen or some other process gets oomed.

Additionally, spawning a new process per request can represent an availability violation. An attacker could launch a series of very slow connections to a server spawning a new process per request, causing a depletion of resources.

With all that said, I wouldn’t say there are no uses at all for this, it can be useful to make very minimal network connected software that does some very basic stuff in a secure network.

If the product costs that much to run, and most users aren’t abusing their access, it’s possible the product isn’t profitable at any price that enough users are willing to pay.

You would still need to pass the GPU through to the VM, but this can eliminate the need to plug the GPU output into another device or use a dedicated monitor.

I have never used it, but I know it is pretty common.

This might be of use to you:

https://looking-glass.io/

You might still need a dummy hdmi/DP plug/adapter.

Boot issues on Linux are like most of the other problems Linux has, there is no standard way to do things, so people invent their own ways, and it results in the problems we see today. This doesn't just apply to booting, it also particularly includes dns and network management. Combined with the fact that its a low level thing people don't want to deal with, it gets left to rot. Few understand it leading it frustration.

Grub isn't a simple tool because it's not solving only simple problems. A simple situation would be booting a VM, where something like systemd-boot is probably preferred over grub since the heavy lifting should already be done by the host OS at that point.

Also, it's not grub that is usually broken (grub did load after all...), it's something else like a bad or botched update or something similar that breaks support for some hardware or the initramfs got messed up. I frequently encounter servers that suddenly stop booting and get stuck in either the initramfs or at grub, and selecting an older option usually gets me back into the os proper. Also, I have noticed it's most often ubuntu that gets messed up while rhel and friends are much less likely to break. Breakage on arch is usually the result of specific user error, or some incompatibility was introduced.

In your case, the issue could have been (just guessing) a new kernel was installed, but the config tool might not have been run to create the new references. It's not exactly grubs fault if the thing it was suppose to point to no longer exists. Simpler systems like arch do not have this problem at all since the kernel is always overwritten in-place, so the references are unlikely to ever get broken, but this is not without pretty annoying tradeoffs.

I didn't think to check the number of patches, but as you can see, a lot of those patches have nothing to do with x86 specifically, and some relate to the scripts to implement or change behavior for their distro. If you check Arch, it has not nearly as many patches and still works fine. https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/grub

You are correct that grub probably is the better part of an OS, but so are most other bootloaders that actually implement useful features (UKI IS linux, for example). systemd-boot implements few extra features like filesystems and lvm. On Linux, it's not the end of the world since you can pack in much more stuff in the initramfs to support more filesystems and other interesting behaviors.

I can definitely agree that grub is not very actively maintained, and there are even some outstanding bugs and fairly important and reasonable feature requests that are sitting with ready to apply patches. But grub is also a mostly complete project. Most things boot fine with it as is, and it's not like the EFI spec is constantly changing requiring regular updates. It's also probably fair to say that working on grub probably isn't a walk in the park due to how low level it is.

To be more clear on how I implemented my little scheme, neither grub or a script actually sync anything. I have two completely independent ESPs that are not synchronized automatically in any way. But because the grub EFI binary supports btrfs, it can just point to /boot in whatever btrfs filesystem which is where most of the configuration actually is. In this way, the dual ESPs are generated once and occasionally updated whenever I feel like, and /boot can continue to be managed by mainline scripts without any customization, such as mkconfig whatever initramfs build tool since the mirroring is completely transparent.

It simply is not possible to replicate this without grub since no other bootloader (to my knowledge) supports btrfs, or any other raid capable abstraction. You could get close by including additional scripts to ensure the appropriate configs and images are synced, but that is another point of failure.