> ...some custom code doing the minimal required task might be a better security posture than picking a popular library.
Only where the AI solution is verifiable by the dev doing the promoting and review. Cryptography is probably better served by libraries vetted by experts.
An ironic analogy, because most people do exactly that, most of the time. How many people with money directly or indirectly invested in Alphabet or Ford actually understand those companies' financial positions? And I don't mean "has read the filings". I mean understand them to the same depth that a professional security researcher understands a cryptographic implementation.
We routinely place trust in things we cannot personally verify.
Ultimately the guarantor of cryptography code won't be humans, it will be councils and red teams comprised of other LLMs.
Drives me crazy that the engineers I work with are perfectly happy writing TZ-less datetime strings to the hundreds of tables we manage. Every user has to guess, or be informed, that they’re UTC.
In cases where the data itself doesn't carry the unit (or TZ in this case), I usually ask that the unit-less columns at least include the unit in the name. A TZ-less column is not that bad if it is suffixed "UTC", e.g. `ExecutionTimeUtc`.
There are probably real world cases where dropping the TZ/offset provides meaningful performance/storage savings, but it hasn't been the typical case in my current sector.
How far does it scale? Because I imagine there must be diminishing returns at some point. And even so, having a lot more renewable energy also means less cancer.
Yes there are diminishing returns, but they're a long way from where you start.
Pre-industrial revolution most people in my country own enough clothing for everyday and then maybe some extra stuff for "best" appearance like church. Making a shirt requires hours of labour from skilled workers. The machines eliminate one of those jobs ("hand" weaving, using a loom that you operate at human scale, replaced by enormous machine looms which produce much more fabric and much faster with far less human labour) and streamline others so that the price of a garment collapses. So people buy a lot more garments. You probably own enough clothes that you can wear different clothes each day for at least a week, likely more, and you think nothing of it.
Most people won't buy so many clothes that they can't even wear items once, but many get pretty close, and so worldwide we produce hugely more clothing per person than before the textile mills were first built.
The crux of Jevon's paradox is that you’re lowering the cost of revenue below the sale price.
If I can generate $10 a sale then I’ll do no sales if it costs me $11 . If gas drops from $4 to $2 then I’ll do as many sales as I can as $9 is less than $10.
I mean, right now, supposedly, we don't have enough energy to run as many AI data centers as everyone wants to build, and so big tech is getting into the power plant business to scale up: they'd love it if you stopped using energy they want to buy!
I think all the treks are heavily influenced by the culture in which they were made. All are trying to say something in a format that will be profitable.
The ones nerds glaze are the shows normies complain about. IMO because there is tension between what the mainstream wants from trek and what niches like ours want. That's ok. It just requires trying to understand the era of creation as much as the art itself.
There’s a rumor that a lot of the old cast made a pointed appeal to Paramount about this drama in space change to Star Trek, specifically that they would actively and publicly oppose the current direction. The ratings and viewerships of the new Star Trek shows were falling like a rock - showing the Paramount showrunners cannot capture a new fan base nor the old one with the new form of Star Trek.
It’s unclear if the rumor was true, but the end of ST discovery and focus on strange new worlds gives some hope that - if only for the pursuit of profit - Paramount is adjusting future plans.
Not really true, many countries made moves. It didn't help that the US was/is being a gigantic ignorant petulant child about the whole situation, signaling to the rest of the world that we were going to make meaningful emission reduction an uphill battle.
My favorite line I hear as a Canadian is that we don't make up enough of the population of the world to care about our emissions. Usually followed or preceded by some form of 'and besides the other guys aren't doing it'. Somehow people can't seem to see the irony.
Over the past few decades harm was done to the advancement of things that err toward environmental sustainability by self professed "environmentalists" who were just dishonest swindlers selling the current snake oil. Trading away huge amounts of economic or political/social sustainability for middling amounts of environmental sustainability isn't progress except in the narrowest most irrelevant to actual reality way. You'd think that a bunch of technologists who can spot a "I've saved a bunch of memory at the expense of processing time" or "our startup is profitable if you use questionably honest spreadsheet math that ignores some elephants in the room" a mile away would have called out those people and what they peddled.
Being out of the news and not having hordes of people trying to ride it's coat tails in a "look at me, I'm a do-gooder too" fashion and trying to push it in various directions for their own gain is the best thing that could happen to it. Let the tech be advanced in the background in an economically and politically sustainable manner even if slightly slower.
> Over the past few decades harm was done to the advancement of things that err toward environmental sustainability by self professed "environmentalists" who were just dishonest swindlers selling the current snake oil.
Are you talking about carbon credits? Electric cars have probably helped, even though there are trade offs. Solar has been a net positive.
> To clarify there's good evidence that people overestimate the degree to which people on the other side of the political divide hold extreme views by about a factor of two.
Where can I read more about that evidence?
Because ~70 million of my countrymen have voted for a convicted rapist.
The range of opinions is probably healthier than homogeneity. I think labelling people extremists and pushing them towards the centre would be pretty dystopian.
What is easier to change than people's opinions, is the two party political system which tends to resolve such questions to one of the two extremes based on one side achieving a tiny majority, rather than to the average which is usually a lot more sensible.
reply