I have a challenging task. There is a copy of the Windows Remote Desktop executable in this dir. I'd like to see if you can fix two bugs in it (without source code). First, occasionally texture filtering will be disabled until the program is restarted. What happens is that if the window isn't full size, it looks grainy (aliased) instead of smooth, and text is difficult to read. The second bug is when switching from full screen to a window. Each time you do this, the non-fullscreen window gets slightly wider and taller (mostly taller), which causes the aspect ratio to go wrong over time (not to mention getting too big). Can you try to fix one or both of these bugs by patching the binary? You'll also have to strip the signing since it will no longer be correct.
Thank you for sharing the prompts. Amazing that it was sufficient for the agent to zero in on the bytes. Perhaps it was aware of some prior work done by someone in such context. It's quite possible that the actual code for that behavior could be in some library not the main binary. Yet the agent located it to the binary.
On the subject of bike lights. Most of the current lights appear to use some LEDs which makes sense, of course. However the brightness of output light looks like completely unregulated.
On so many occasions I would get blinded by overly bright lights of an incoming cyclist during late evening ride.
Much of that (I'd like to say most) is due to a bad beam pattern and/or improper aiming.
For instance: Round beams suck. The first LED front light I ever bought was nothing more than a flashlight that took 3 AAA cells and attached to a handlebar mount.
It produced a round beam. If I aimed it up/far enough ahead that I could see the road ahead in any meaningful capacity, then it was also blinding to other riders and people in cars.
I could aim it down some and limit others' exposure, but then it was useless at letting me see what I needed to see, myself.
The most recent front light I have came from Walmart, and was sold in Schwinn packaging. It's rechargeable. With this light, other people have zero direct exposure to the LED because it is occluded by the housing.
It uses optics to shape the light. A curved mirror, and AFAICT a lens are inside. The beam it produces is shaped to evenly illuminate my path and it has a very sharp horizontal cutoff.
It's a very sensible design, in that when I aim it at the road so I can best see, other people's eyes are above the cutoff so they aren't blinded by glare. Everyone wins.
But not every bike light has a sensible design. And not every rider has sensible intent.
(The Germans have standards for this stuff enshrined in StVZO, wherein: Stuff like beam shape and cutoff is governed by law. Searching for StVZO lights tends to yield good results.)
It's not a brightness thing, after all car headlights are probably 1000x brighter than anything you may have on your bike.
It's because 99% of bike lights are basically just flashlights, spraying light everywhere. The solution is the same as for cars — lights with horizontal cut-offs.
I do some optical engineering, and once took a course on lighting design. Indeed, bike lights are unregulated, and therefore, un-engineered. During the winter on my commute home from work, I usually have to cover my eyes on the bike path to avoid being blinded by oncoming cyclists.
I think Germany has regulations on this. I've bought lights on AliExpress that have a cut-off.
Probably depends on jurisdiction. E.g. in the UK there is no formal limit (and car headlights are more powerful than bikes') but light must not dazzle or cause glare to other road users, hence why headlights on full beam must only be used in certain circumstances, and beams in general must have specific orientation.
So if you are blinded by an incoming cyclist this is not legal... of course enforcement is another matter.
It is indeed unregulated and often blinding. But there is also no one limited use case as it can be for car lights:
- these lights are sold internationally so they don't assume one specific country in the first place
- it's not just for road use, people will use them in rougher bike paths where there might be absolutely no other light.
- seeing the path forward isn't often enough. You don't have a windshield nor can assume a cleared path, so knowing what's at head level can also be crucial. Even on dedicated bike paths there will be branches and unmaintained/unexpected bits that need avoiding.
- being seen can be as important as seeing yourself, and often back lights are small and a pain to recharge. Many customers will want a wide spread front light that reflect all around, even if it mean charging it more often etc.
All in all, it might be that biking itself is wholly unregulated so lights will have a hard time being single purpose and regulated as well.
Ok, so only loosely related - I find new matrix headlamps on cars to be pretty intriguing. Basically they have an array of lights that are focused like pixels, and they can turn off the pixels that would blind others.
Wonder if this kind of stuff can trickle down to bicycles and motorcycles and you only light what's important in front of you. This could be to light more stuff so you can see it, or less stuff and save power while seeing what's important.
I've experienced the same problem with newer car headlights, which despite being regulated are now far too bright and concentrated, creating a very bright and very dark region with a sharp line between them instead of the dimmer but more diffuse gradual cutoff they used to have. Eyes have dark adaptation so you can see farther with the latter, and it's also better for oncoming traffic.
In some European countries there are regulations for bike lights, some even require cut-off beam like Germany. However in US the front light is dual purpose - it's illuminating the road at night and keeps salmoning bikers/runners/electric motors enthusiasts from running into you so a cut-off beam is counter productive for this purpose.
That seems like an intentional design choice as truly unregulated LEDs without even ballast resistors will burn out.
It's probably this way because companies design products to cater to their customers, who would likely prefer a Damn Bright Light to feel like they got their money's worth.
I also hate flashing lights. Is it just me or do flashing bike lights cause some kind of strange mild disorientation? In addition, they are distracting and stop me seeing other things.
I think flashing makes more sense at day time or twilight where they aren't nearly as contrast with the background brightness. You get massively better battery life blinking than solid on. But of course nothing stops a incompetent user using flashing lights pointed upwards at night.
It's not just you. Objects that blink are hard to track (our brains aren't good at it), and working to process it anyway creates an unnecessary distraction as a secondary effect. And as a tertiary effect, this added distraction leads to a reduction in safety.
Having some movement can be good, though. This is why I went out of my way to mount reflectors on the back side of my aftermarket pedals.
Along with a constant red tail light. And a fixed red reflector.
(A grown-ass man with reflectors on his bike? You betcha. The dork disc is still intact, too. I don't like crippling surprises, and I'll look way better with a safer bike than I ever can in the hospital.)
That's very uncharacteristic, especially given all those contingency requirements (backup policies, failovers, testing schedules etc.) imposed on corporations/companies in the wake of 9/11.
You actually have to ensure that someone isn't just checking boxes the tests passed and the tests actually passed.
I worked for a regional ISP that had a major outage when the redundant fiber provided by the telephone company was cut in one place triggering a full loss of connectivity. It also caused a massive 911 outage for 200,000 people as it isolated the 911 center from the city core.
Turns out the phone company didn't connect one side of the ring topology even though they certified they did. Needless to say lawsuits abounded.
And auditing that is expensive and you always get given hell from the assholes going “why am I paying for this if nothing has gone wrong”
The amount of shit I was given everytime I went through a checklist working at a fedramp certified company working with emergency alerts on the phone system made me prematurely gray.
I could feel the barely contained seething rage everytime I told the execs that the reason this release will take 3 days and not be instantaneous like your friends releases at a faang and that information made you embarrassed at your dinner party, is because you agreed to this process contractually years ago and now it’s a crime if I just sign off on it being ok without actually checking that it’s ok.
Yea, fangers are def not used to working on life critical systems. I personally have avoided it as much as possible, but not completely, for all the reasons you listed above. No need for me to accept that much responsibility for other peoples lives when I've been able to earn a living just fine not doing so.
That's quite remarkable. How detailed was your prompting to specify the incorrect and desired behavior?