Readit NewsImagine putting all your work into creating an amazing demo and then drowning it with one design decision.
Edit: Ok I see that you can change the view in settings. They should make that option more visible.
I think it would obviously be less than ideal for Google to require an employee visually inspect child pornography identified by image hash before informing a legal authority like the police. So it seems more likely that the remedy to this situation would be for the police to obtain a warrant after getting the tip but before requesting the raw data from Google.
Would the image hash match qualify as probable cause enough for a warrant? On page 4 the judge stops short of setting precedence on whether it would have or not. Seems likely that it would be a solid probable cause to me, but sometimes judges or courts have a unique interpretation of technology that I don't always share, and leaving it open to individual interpretation can lead to conflicting results.
These hashes are not collision-resistant.
You can only deduce a distribution from repeated measurements. But most physicists would have no problem talking about a single experiment having many possible outcomes, governed by a probability distribution. It's almost a philosophical question about whether probability means anything in single systems.
It's the same way in quantum mechanics. The effects of entanglement can only be discerned if you take repeated samples. But we still feel okay talking about single systems governed by such entanglement.
I was under the impression that a particular entangled system is defined in terms of a particular waveform, which means that the choice of another waveform including, say, an additional particle off to the side, would imply that the entanglement -- which is supposed to be the behaviour being described, not the theory used to describe it -- actually changes. So, substitution of separate waveforms for each component of the entanglement would imply that entanglement is not present. How would this be false in a way different from the inaccuracies present in any other choice of waveform?
The canonical answer to your question is Bell's inequality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem. But TL;DR: the distinction only shows up in the statistics of repeated experiments. There is _no way_ to distinguish them in single-fire experiments. Entanglement is defined in terms of "odd" statistics.
In repeated measurements of related properties (e.g. spin along varying angle), entangled systems show more correlation than it should be possible classically.
"What is the performance limit when scaling LLM inference? Sky's the limit.
We have mathematically proven that transformers can solve any problem, provided they are allowed to generate as many intermediate reasoning tokens as needed. Remarkably, constant depth is sufficient.
http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12875 (ICLR 2024)"
This type of article - built upon disgruntled former employees - is worth about as much as the apology GrubHub gift card.
Look, I think just as poorly about CrowdStrike as anyone else out there... but you can find someone to say anything, especially when they have an axe to grind and a chance at some spotlight. Not to mention this guy was a designer and wouldn't be involved in QC anyway.
> Of the 24 former employees who spoke to Semafor, 10 said they were laid off or fired and 14 said they left on their own. One was at the company as recently as this summer. Three former employees disagreed with the accounts of the others. Joey Victorino, who spent a year at the company before leaving in 2023, said CrowdStrike was “meticulous about everything it was doing.”
So basically we have nothing.
Yes, I'm more likely to leave reviews if I'm unsatisfied. Yes, people are more likely to leave CS if they were unhappy. Biased data, but still useful data.
I have had to go through a few that feel extremely dangerous compared to having all cars stop for me. So I know I must be missing something.
Edit: Also, I see a lot of comments on yield. I'm probably confused too, but how do they work when traffic is non-stop? Is there a specific traffic rate beyond which roundabouts become less safe?
It's very much trying to go _under_ the abstraction layer to investigate its behavior. Because it's interesting.
This is very similar to how people investigate performance quirks or security issues.