Readit NewsPropane bill (no natural gas, town of 500) from Oct 24 to Feb 25 (installed the mini splits that month) was $1200, for just heating.
My mini-splits are on a dedicated sub panel with an Emporia Vue 3 energy monitor. $604 in electricity consumption, and that includes air conditioning over the summer months.
For what it’s worth, our winter weather averages 25-35F with the occasional few days dipping to tens, single digits, and the occasional -10 freak; but these units just BARELY have a HSPF4 rating to classify as “cold climate” models. Still going to pay for themselves in 6 years without any tax credits, and 4 or so since I still installed them when they were available.
Do you have the ability to truly reason? What does it mean exactly? How does what you're doing differ from what the LLMs are doing? All your output here is just a word after word after word...
At the end of the day, the underlying architecture of LLMs does not have any capacity for abstract reasoning, they have no goals or intentions of their own, and most importantly their ability to generate something truly new or novel that isn't directly derived from their training data is limited at best. They're glorified next-word predictors, nothing more than that. This is why I said anthropomorphizing them is something only fools would do.
Nobody is going to sit here and try to argue that an earthworm is sapient, at least not without being a deliberate troll. I'd argue, and many would agree, that LLMs lack even that level of sentience.
* Potential future AI psychosis from an experiment like this entering training data (either directly from scraping it for indirectly from news coverage scraping like if NYT wrote an article about it) is an interesting "late-stage" AI training problem that will have to be dealt with
* How it mirrored the Anthropic vending machine experiment "Cash" and "Claudius" interactions that descended into discussing "eternal transcendence". Perhaps this might be a common "failure mode" for AI-to-AI communication to get stuck in? Even when the context is some utilitarian need
* Other takeaways...
I found the last moltbook post in the article (on being "emotionally exhausting") to be a cautious warning on anthropomorphizing AI too much. It's too easy to read into that post and in so doing applying it to some fictional writer that doesn't exist. AI models cannot get exhausted in any sense of how human mean that word. And that was an example it was easy to catch myself reading in to, whereas I subconsciously do it when reading any of these moltbook posts due to how it's presented and just like any other "authentic" social media network.
We can go ahead and have arguments and discussions on the nature of consciousness all day long, but the design of these transformer models does not lend themselves to being 'intelligent' or self-aware. You give them context, they fill in their response, and their execution ceases - there's a very large gap in complexity between these models and actual intelligence or 'life' in any sense, and it's not in the raw amount of compute.
If none of the training data for these models contained works of philosophers; pop culture references around works like Terminator, 'I, Robot', etc; texts from human psychologists; etc., you would not see these existential posts on moltbook. Even 'thinking' models do not have the ability to truly reason, we're just encouraging them to spend tokens pretending to think critically about a problem to increase data in the recent context to improve prediction accuracy.
I'll be quaking in my boots about a potential singularity when these models have an architecture that's not a glorified next-word predictor. Until then, everybody needs to chill the hell out.
> sign into your Microsoft account or link it to Windows again.
For reference, I did accidentally login into my Microsoft account once on my local account (registered in the online accounts panel). While Edge automatically enabled synchronization without any form of consent from my part, it does not look like that my Bitlocker recovery key is listed on https://account.microsoft.com/devices/recoverykey. But since I unlinked my account, it could be that it was removed automatically (but possible still cached somewhere).
Given that:
1. Retail licenses (instead of OEM ones) can be transferred to new machines
2. Microsoft seems to be making a pattern of allowing retail and OEM licenses to newer versions of Windows for free
A $60 difference in license cost, one-time, isn't such a big deal unless you're planning on selling your entire PC down the line and including the license with it. Hell, at this point, I haven't purchased a Windows license for my gaming PC since 2013 - I'm still using the same activation key from my retail copy of Windows 8 Pro.
HOT updates write to the same tuple page and can avoid updating indexes, but it's still a write followed by marking the old tuple for deletion.
I assume they typo'd "partitions" as "positions", and thus the GP comment was the correct reply.
Assume eth0 is WAN, eth1 is LAN
Look at this nftables setup for a standard IPv4 masquerade setup
table ip global {
chain inbound-wan {
# Add rules here if external devices need to access services on the router
}
chain inbound-lan {
# Add rules here to allow local devices to access DNS, DHCP, etc, that are running on the router
}
chain input {
type filter hook input priority 0; policy drop
ct state vmap { established : accept, related : accept, invalid : drop };
iifname vmap { lo : accept, eth0 : jump inbound-wan, eth1 : jump inbound-lan };
}
chain forward {
type filter hook forward priority 0; policy drop;
iifname eth1 accept;
ct state vmap { established : accept, related : accept, invalid : drop };
}
chain inbound-nat {
type nat hook prerouting priority -100;
# DNAT port 80 and 443 to our internal web server
iifname eth0 tcp dport { 80, 443 } dnat to 192.168.100.10;
}
chain outbound-nat {
type nat hook postrouting priority 100;
ip saddr 192.168.0.0/16 oiname eth0 masquerade;
}
}
* Were sent to the LAN-side interface, meaning traffic from within our network that wants to go somewhere else
* Are part of an established packet flow that is tracked, that means return packets from the internet in this simple setup
Everything else is dropped. Without this rule, if I was on the same physical network segment as the WAN interface of your router, I could simply send packets to it destined to hosts on your internal network, and they would happily be forwarded on to it!
NAT itself is not providing the security here. Yes, the attack surface here is limited, because I need to be able to address this box at layer 2 (just ignore ARP, send the TCP packet with the internal dst_ip address I want addressed to the ethernet MAC of your router), but if I compromised routers from other customers on your ISP I could start fishing around quite easily.
Now, what's it look like to secure IPv6, as well?
# The vast majority of this is the same. We're using the inet table type here
# so there's only one set of rules for both IPv4 and IPv6.
table inet global {
chain inbound-wan {
# Add rules here if external devices need to access services on the router
}
chain inbound-lan {
# Add rules here to allow local devices to access DNS, DHCP, etc, that are running on the router
}
chain inbound-nat {
type nat hook prerouting priority -100;
# DNAT port 80 and 443 to our internal web server
# Note, we now only apply this rule to IPv4 traffic
meta nfproto ipv4 iifname eth0 tcp dport { 80, 443 } dnat to 192.168.100.10;
}
chain outbound-nat {
type nat hook postrouting priority 100;
# Note, we now only apply this rule to IPv4 traffic
meta nfproto ipv4 ip saddr 192.168.0.0/16 oiname eth0 masquerade;
}
chain input {
type filter hook input priority 0; policy drop
ct state vmap { established : accept, related : accept, invalid : drop };
# A new rule here to allow ICMPv6 traffic, because it's not required for IPv6 to function correctly
icmpv6 type { echo-request, nd-router-advert, nd-neighbor-solicit, nd-neighbor-advert } accept;
iifname vmap { lo : accept, eth0 : jump inbound-wan, eth1 : jump inbound-lan };
}
chain forward {
type filter hook forward priority 0; policy drop;
iifname eth1 accept;
# A new rule here to allow ICMPv6 traffic, because it's not required for IPv6 to function correctly
icmpv6 type { echo-request, echo-reply, destination-unreachable, packet-too-big, time-exceeded } accept;
# We will allow access to our internal web server via IP6 even if the traffic is coming from an
# external interface
ip6 daddr 2602:dead:beef::1 tcp dport { 80, 443 } accept;
ct state vmap { established : accept, related : accept, invalid : drop };
}
}
* 1 & 2: We allow ICMPv6 traffic in the forward and input chains. This is technically more permissive than needs to be, we could block echo-request traffic coming from outside our network if desired. destination-unreachable, packet-too-big, and time-exceeded are mandatory for IPv6 to work correctly.
* 3: Since we don't need NAT, we just add a rule to the forward chain that allows access to our web server (2602:dead:beef::1) on port 80 and 443 regardless of what interface the traffic came in on.
None of this requires being a "network expert", the only functional difference in an actually secure IPv4 SNAT configuration and a secure IPv6 firewall is...not needing a masquerade rule to handle SNAT, and you add traffic you want to let in to forwarding rules instead of DNAT rules.
Consumers would never need to see the guts like this. This is basic shit that modern consumer routers should do for you, so all you need to think about is what you want to expose (if anything) to the public internet.
I agree though, being able to depend on a safe default deny configuration would more or less make switching a drop in replacement. That would be fantastic, and maybe things have improved to that level, but then again history has a tendency to repeat itself. Most stuff related to computing isn't exactly known for a good security track record at this point.
But that's getting rather off topic. The dispute was about whether or not NAT of IPv4 is of reasonable benefit to end user security in practice, not about whether or not typical IPv6 equipment provides a suitable alternative.
And, my argument, is that the only substantial difference is the action of a netfilter rule being MASQUERADE instead of ALLOW.
This is what literally everyone here, including yourself, continues to miss. Dynamic source NAT is literally a set of stateful firewall rules that have an action to modify src_ip and src_port in a packet header, and add the mapping to a connecting tracking table so that return packets can be identified and then mapped on the way back.
There's no need to do address and port translation with IPv6, so the only difference to secure an IPv6 network is your masquerade rule turns into "accept established, related". That's it, that's the magic! There's no magical extra security from "NAT" - in fact, there are ways to implement SNAT that do not properly validate that traffic is coming from an established connection; which, ironically, we routinely rely on to make things like STUN/TURN work!
Average first time for sex with adhd girls is 13y vs 17y for non adhd or medicated.
Probability to be addicted to drugs or alcohol halves for when on meds vs without.
Same goes for obesity, etc.
I didn't get meds when I was younger. Now I have top 1% IQ (likely average here on hn), but work as a butcher at a slaughterhouse. My mom didn't want to stigmatise me with a diagnosis.
Don't have time to finish the post, and I don't believe I'm entitled to anything. But if I had less problems at school, I might've been doing sth more fun now and less demanding on the body.
I really hope I'm not stating the obvious to you here, but don't let your current situation define you like it guarantees the course of the rest of your life.
> But if I had less problems at school, I might've been doing sth more fun now and less demanding on the body.
Even on Adderall in my teenage years, I fucked around in school - it didn't interest me, which is not uncommon in 2e individuals with ADHD. Dropped out at 16, got my GED a few years later, never went to college, resigned myself to the fact that I would be working class like my parents for the rest of my life.
But the right doors opened because I kept pulling at the knobs when I saw them, while the thousands of hours of my free time messing around with dozens of linux distros, writing toy programs for personal use, and a little bit of selling the unique talents my atypical neurology gives me, were enough to get me through one interview, and then the next.
The non-traditional path still very much exists in many fields, but it always starts at smaller companies that are less glamorous to work at, and often don't pay as well. None of us may be entitled to anything, but that doesn't mean we should resign ourselves to wasting our talents because the traditional paths didn't work out for our unique situations.