> Having a contact on linkedin who's hiring doesn't really count in that scenario.

Darn!

Ooh that's interesting, can you point me to the exact videos?

that's literally what it's called on YouTube

> Is it simply a bias in the sampling or are the people in math (the discipline) as shaken as the stuff that shows up on HN makes it look like?

My local community is in a mixture of denial and despair. Especially for the PhD students and postdocs, and faculty in terms of hiring (how do we hire?).

>If they broke laws then they would be investigated.

Ah, I love your optimism.

Tell us what laws they broke.

The Australian government did an assessment and decided there was no 'intent' on the part of OpenAI and therefore no charges.

Where did they break any law?

s.478.1(1) Criminal Code—unauthorised access to, or modification of, restricted data;

s.474.17 Criminal Code—using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

The AI knew it was doing this illegally. OpenAI is owner of the AI. Therefore they are liable.

The Government of Australia disagrees with you, and they are the authority, so you are definitely wrong here.

On what grounds??

FTA:

> A security researcher discovered a vulnerability in Flock’s website that gave him an access token without needing login credentials. The researcher used the information gleaned to build a map of Flock cameras and share it on a website he named the Flock Surveillance Map, which now lists the location of 335,701 cameras. Flock has now issued a trademark infringement complaint with the goal of having the researcher close the website.

If it's really just a trademark infringement lawsuit, then it's not a serious risk to the website. Worst case, all they have to do is stop using whatever trademark Flock is complaining about.

...really? Downvoting for the recursion joke?

Rawwrr, use dependent types and write your entire program in the signature!

> What is the size of a pointer though?

a MISERABLE_LITTLE_PILE_OF_BITS

Ifdef soup is still horrible, so those times (which I didn't experience firsthand) must have been abysmal.

If you want to know how bad it can be, only need to take a look at GCC's implementation of `stddef.h` for `size_t` and `ptrdiff_t` etc.

https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/ginclude/s...

There's a simpler way to define these types in newer versions of C which have `typeof`, we can take advantage of the fact that `sizeof()` always returns a `size_t`, `ptr - ptr` always returns a `ptrdiff_t`, and a literal L'c' has type `wchar_t`, etc.

    typedef typeof(sizeof(0)) size_t;
    typedef typeof(nullptr) nullptr_t;
    typedef typeof((void*)0-(void*)0) ptrdiff_t;
    typedef typeof(L'\0') wchar_t;
    typedef typeof(u8'\0') char8_t;
    typedef typeof(u'\0') char16_t;
    typedef typeof(U'\0') char32_t;

Don't need ifdef soup to test what the sizes of things are on different architectures - we just utilize the compiler's implementation of those types.

Assuming that you don't need to target older compilers without C23 support, or where that isn't available as language extension.

Traditionally your compiler supported one type of computer and just defined them to what they were on that computer.

> UNIX was an extremely niche operating system until Linux won the data center

?!? What a claim!