I just can't imagine mining the moon being in any way shape or form easier than mining the earth. The list of workplace hazards would be impressive. I imagine we're talking surface mines to keep the logistics manageable, but then:
1. How do you get astrominers there and back safely and on a regular basis whilst still keeping costs down?
2. What would it cost to keep your astrominers well fed and rested in a comfortable environment (warm, enough water, entertainment, etc)
3. How much more in bonuses (danger of hazard, long way from home, etc) do you even have to pay an astrominer vs a terraminer?
4. Most mines have some form of processing on site, e.g. break down rocks and sift through shit. How do you get those massive machines up there on the cheap and service them frequently on the cheap? Do we even have the machines that can work in those conditions?
5. Gravity is weak on the moon, I can imagine rocks of considerable mass flying or tumbling about being an issue. Sifting doesn't work as it does on earth without normal gravity and abundant water.
6. etc. etc. etc.?
I mean I think it'd be cool if we could pull it off as a civilisation but I just can't imagine how out there in scope and complexity moon mining would be.
But I think mining asteroids will be easier than mining the moon. Because on asteroids, everything is right at the surface. There's an asteroid that seems to be just the nickel-iron core of a former planet. That's more nickel and iron than you could ever hope to mine on Earth, and there's no planet around it.
Mining the earth is of course the easiest, because we're already there and there's no space travel or vacuum involved. But it's also very destructive, and once you tackle the space travel and zero-g mining issues, I think asteroid mining is going to be way more profitable. As well as saving our planet.
I can imagine dragging smaller asteroids and letting them "drop" into earth (e.g. attach massive parachutes and then guide them to land on some mining site. Totally sci-fi but I still find it less so than the moon. The reason I don't imagine robots mining the moon is that minerals, as you say, are not readily on the surface, nor is the moon mainly made up of a specific mineral.
I once heard that the one thing we might mine on the moon is He3, once/if we get to that level of fusion power. There's apparently a lot of it, and it's right at the surface.
But the advantage of asteroids is that everything is at the surface.
ChatGPT is not human, and cannot be more assertive, authoritative or lying than Python.
If you give python "0.1 + 0.3", it will instantly, and without a doubt, output "0.30000000000000004". Is Python arrogantly thinking it's right and misleading you?
Of course not. This last sentence makes no sense, Python is just a program that does what it's programmed to do.
But because ChatGPT is using natural language as a UI, it triggers a very irrational response in humans interacting with it.
We are starting to anthropomorphize it, use adjective like "assertive", "authoritative", and "lie" to label its output, which is like calling Covid cruel and vicious because it kills old people, or a NPC lazy because it does not work to pay for its food.
There is no intent of ChatGPT to deceive or justify its supposed lies. There is only a program that does what's its programmed to do, and shows its limitations.
What do you expect, that is says "I think it's x but I can be wrong with a confidence interval of z" with every answer? Do you expect google to tell that when it outputs the results?
GPT is not talking to you. It's an output. It's not confident. It's a program printing text matching statistical analysis.
It's worrying that such a simple program is already close enough to the real thing that people, even on HN, are already attributing it character.
It's true that ChatGPT is just a program, a machine, and that we are "starting to anthropomorphize" it. But that's what it wants! (Or, what its makers want.)
> Do you expect google to tell that when it outputs the results?
Well, Google doesn't tell me anything, it quotes things it has found on the web.
The huge, huge difference between Google and ChatGPT is that Google never, ever says "I", while ChatGPT does. The other difference is that Google produces references that are actual links to actual web pages it has not authored, while ChatGPT speaks in its own name and when asked to produce references, simply makes them up (lots of examples about this).
If you can't see how ChatGPT is totally different from a regular search engine in its positioning and proposed usage, you're not alone, and I'm afraid I can't help you. But -- IMHO -- you are very very wrong.
I can see that it's totally different from a search engine. If you can't understand that analogies don't need (and cannot be) to be perfect to be useful, you're not alone, and I'm afraid I can't help you. But -- IMHO -- you are very very wrong.
People are starting to entropomorphise gpt3, stating it's bullshitting or lying, instead of realizing this is just a tool that is useful for some things and not for others.
The fact it talks makes people treats it differently than Excel.
But when Excel turns your date into a nonsensical value, people understand it's just a program with limitations
It's fairly bonkers how critics will say that ChatGPT or Lamda are just glorified predictive text in one breath, and then call them "arrogant" or "overconfident" in the next.
I guess the main concern that it's often confidently unreliable. i.e. it's answers sort of make sense most of the time, yet when they are not it's hard to spot. IMHO in most cases where it's difficult to validate its answers or exactness is required this makes more than useless, maybe even harmful.
My issue here is with the word "confident". It's a program. It's as confident as Excel is with date parsing, meaning it's completely neutral about it. It just does its thing.
We attribute this "confident" adjective to the result, not because it outputs a confidence interval, but because it uses language and we associate that with human traits.
Even technical people get tricked, I read and heard some very emotional responses to what it outputs. Sometime people got angry that it was "not honest" or "trying to weasel out of the answer". Personally, I caught myself several times trying to prove it wrong.
Well I'd argue Excel is more obviously deterministic and not at all a blackbox. Basically I can an give it an unlimited number of dates (or other calculations) and as long as my inputs are 'correct' (and I don't encounter any bugs) I can be essentially completely confident that Excel will provide a correct answers. Or even it if won't it will brake in a logical and fixable/workaroundable. With ChatGPT.. well it doesn't seems very consistent. Minor modifications to the question can produce wildly different results which are not at all obvious.
> We attribute this "confident" adjective to the result, not because it outputs a confidence interval, but because it uses language and we associate that with human traits.
I'm not sure. I mean externally/superficially that's true. But internally it's still a statistical model which can't really be totally accurate by definition. It has a huge number of inputs scrapped from the internet etc. While those inputs are generated by humans language can be more or less perfectly logical as long as we follow a consistent set of rules. It's not obvious ChatGPT is capable of that due to the quality of inputs and it's nature.
Even if it's accurate 98%+ of the time that's still problematic (in many but not all applications). I mean would you use a calculator that (seemingly) randomly produces an obviously incorrect answer 2 times of out a hundred?
I suppose it would be akin to a difficult to spot false positive where the person who decided (say, customs) doubles down and you end up having to argue your case.
True. But you can still argue with most humans and possibly succeed in proving your case. Arguing with ChatGPT is seemingly the same as arguing with a (extremely advanced and 'intelligent') calculator.
just had to check what entropomorphise would mean from checking etymology of entropy. it could mean something like inaccurately protecting internal transformations onto sth. which would fit how you use the term as well.
Because GDPR puts restrictions on how inactive or deprecated account data can be kept - to prevent mining of forgotten accounts I suspect was the intention
GDPR just says you cannot keep personal data for longer than is required for the purpose it was collected for (with some exceptions where it can be kept longer).
If you have paid for digital goods with an account, the data is clearly required! Deleting an inactive account after say a year is a choice made by the company, not directly imposed by GDPR.
The problem is that distinction isn’t made clear in the actual law - which is again - why meta is far from alone here even in the gaming space itself. It’s on the EU to clarify compliance here otherwise we will continue to have stories pop up like this.
The law is deliberately silent on exactly how long "necessary" is, as it cannot possibly define that for all uses of personal data in all circumstances.
It's trying to establish principles of good personal data governance, rather than being prescriptive about all uses of data.
This does make it hard for legal teams to determine compliance I guess. But don't expect the EU to be more definite any time soon!
They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret
> They aren’t the only gaming company to interpret GDPR that way and they are arguably target #1 by EU regulators so they don’t have room to misinterpret
This completely contradicts any argument that their interpretation of privacy regulation is remotely compliant. They cross the line in their favour relentlessly.
Malicious compliance maybe but compliance nonetheless - I’m not necessarily defending them here for the record but GDPR has been cited for a lot of inactive account removals recently - meta is already feeling heat from EU regulators - they may not want to take chances.
This is nonsense. While you cannot keep personal data lying around forever with GDPR, deleting accounts after 6 months or a year or inactivity is a choice being made by the company.
They could equally well have said that an account which was inactive for 2 years, or 3 years would be deleted and still be legally compliant.
The requirement is “no longer than necessary” - meta started migrating people away from oculus accounts with the release of the quest 2 over 2 years ago in 2020.
If you have regulators breathing down your neck being conservative on time isn’t a terrible idea.
Yeah that's kinda my take too. A good manager should have enough knowledge to understand the field and be respected, but that's it. Putting your best technical person in this job would probably be a waste:
- excellent biologists, physicists, computer scientists and so on, are rare. You should put them where they can yield the best results. Same for people with managerial qualities.
- managing may requires qualities that are in conflict with excellence in a field. Juggling projects, building relationships or the will to play some political/administrative game may be very useful for a manager, but not necessary something an excellent developer or a surgeon would have maxed out as a skill.
Yes but the problem here is the obfuscation of the malware code loading. No need to trigger it in the setup.py process, as long as you have it in the lib, you can always put a call in a .pth somewhere and run your malware as soon as any python is executed.
it should be possible to test packages for that also. if you are testing setup.py to see that no network access or exec occurs, you could similarly run the python interpreter after install and ensure no network / exec() happens at that point either, assuming one has not imported the package. or just disallow unfamiliar .pth files from being installed altogether (outside of those generated by setuptools / etc. for normal execution).
Given that every attempt to sandbox python failed, and that every system exposed to the public have been pwn, I assume this is a cat and mouse game we can't win.
At best I suppose we could put in place checks to get low hanging fruits. But we are, after all, allowing a turing complete and highly dynamic language to execute.
> or just disallow unfamiliar .pth files from being installed altogether
That would kill the entire plugin ecosystem.
Now, the next thing could be to have a permission system, requesting access to the network, fs, .pth, etc. It would not be a bad idea, given that we are, after all, installing things that are as powerful as apps.
But it would be a gigantic effort, and users still would just accept without reading, like they do with apps.
Yes, but pypi has 4 millions release to check, and the scientific and machine learning wheels are very hard to compile (scipy contains c, fortran and assembly code, and must be compiled to mac, linux and windows).
Providing a build env for that would make it prohibitively complicated and expensive, and basically would mirror github CI.
That's the reason continuum is making money: they sell a python package distribution channel that is checked and locked.
You can pip install complex stand alone executables, such as nodejs, and it's used in the entire ecosystem.
In fact, most packages are now wheels, which are not sources: they are compressed, and may contain binaries for compiles extensions, something extremely popular (the scientific and AI stacks exist only because of this).
Some packages need to be compiled after the fact, something that setup.py will trigger, and some even embed a fallback compiler, like some cython based packages.
Also, remember there is very few people working on pypi, there is no moderation, anybody can publish anything, so you would need a bullet proof automated heuristic. That's either impractical, or too expensive.
If you want a secure package distribution platform, there are commercial ones, such as anaconda. You get what you pay for.
