Last week (Sunday to Sunday) I had a repo running a lot of cron workflows 24/7. After like 4 or 5 days I exceeded the free limits (Pro plan) and so set up self hosted runners.
After like day 2 my workflows would take 10-15 minutes past their trigger time to show up and be queued. And switching to the self hosted runners didn't change that. Happens every time with every workflow, whether the workflow takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.
Odd that you would omit the part of the text you quoted that contradicts the impression your partial quote creates.
> The images were initially believed to have been obtained via a breach of Apple's cloud services suite iCloud, or a security issue in the iCloud API which allowed them to make unlimited attempts at guessing victims' passwords. Apple claimed in a press release that access was gained via spear phishing attacks.
I also found it notable that the source for the above unlimited password guessing password guessing is an Apple press release that states no such thing.
Also interesting was that all sources in that article suggesting anything about unlimited attempts describe to an app or script (unclear which) called iDar, which the only source to actual name iDar claims that it reports success 100% of the time, regardless of its actual success in guessing the password.
I've no love for Apple. Maybe it's true. But the evidence presented in this wiki article is weak.
Oh sorry, you're right. Here's an article[1] about Facebook, from the same outlet. With some cursory searching I couldn't find anything about other social networks hiring former three letter agency employees.
> an enormous amount of empirical data underscores the risk to an individual's health posed by the consumption of cigarettes and, therefore, it can be argued that a parent allowing their children to smoke could potentially amount to child endangerment or abuse, depending on the context.
1. Would you agree that reasonable people exist who, right or wrong, believe that the psychological toll of SM on children, while not in the same universe as the physical toll of cigarettes, still manages to cross the line of "this is sufficiently harmful that the government must make parenting decisions"?
2. Are you open to the possibility that, in a hypothetical future with sufficient empirical data, those beliefs might be shown to be accurate?
I don't have children / a horse in this race, I'm more exploring your position about the role of government.
1. I don't care what people believe. Human history is full of people who moved to restrict the rights of others because of their beliefs. Beliefs are irrelevant to me.
2. I'm open to the possibility that data could show this, but any proposed legislation would have to be weighed against fundamental human rights. There are a lot of "risky" activities that people, including children, can enter into and we don't legislate against that because people have the right (legally and morally IMO) to commit suicide by any means of their choosing.
Point taken on the fact that beliefs are subservient to data. But society is built on at least some shared beliefs. For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever. That's a shared belief that isn't necessarily rooted in data. We can't just hand-wave away the idea that some beliefs are necessary for society to function. We can, however, debate which beliefs need to be shared for society to function in a particular way.
> For example, based on your responses you may have some belief that there are certain inalienable rights endowed by nature/God/whatever.
I don't want to get into a philosophical debate here, but you can absolutely demonstrate that there are inalienable rights. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in any diety, but rights derive directly from your nature as a human being. That nature being what your requirements for survival are.
As a human you have the capacity to reason and this is your primary tool for survival. That's not a belief, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. As humans we can't fly, we can't run fast, we aren't particularly strong, we don't have venom ... but we can think rationally.
We also have material requirements. We must breathe, we must sleep, we must protect our body from the elements, we have temperature requirements, we are susceptible to viruses, we require nourishment etc.
The combination of our ability to reason with our material requirements for survival mean that in order to survive as a human being you need to think and you need to be able to act. I would argue that anyone that disputes those facts, or believes otherwise, is subscribing to a belief system not grounded in reality and reason.
Your rights, as a human being, are the direct corollary of those two facts of nature. The ability to think is a requirement of your survival and that is why you have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. Your material requirements for survival are the root from which your rights to acquire and own property, to associate and to travel derive.
Within a political context, these become moral sanctions on certain actions. But the "natural rights" theorists will point out that these are all things that are fundamental requirements for your survival even in an isolated context. You can't wish or "believe" these facts away.
Natural rights do not exist outside of the belief in a social contract. That social contract is also a fundamental part of human survival. They are an extension of human reason and do not exist a priori. History is rife with examples of how natural rights is a belief that can be eroded, unlike true natural laws. Besides that, human have the capacity for reason, but this should not be confused with saying humans are rational. That means we have irrational beliefs that can contribute to survival but do not, in fact, reflect reality. That in turn means "fitness for survival" is not a rational basis for determining facts.
As someone who has been doing the same thing recently, here's how I solved the issue where the page content has to be in the initial HTML.
The first thing I did was fall back to a headless browser. Let it sit for 5 seconds to let the page render, then snatch the innerText.
But 5-10% of sites do a good job of showing you the door for being a robot.
I wanted to try and solve those cases by taking a screenshot of the page and using GPT-4 visual inputs, but when I got access I realized that 1) visual inputs aren't available yet and 2) holy crap is GPT-4 expensive.
So instead what I do is give a screenshot service the url, get back a full-page PNG, then I hand that off to GCP Cloud Vision to OCR it. The OCRed text then gets fed into GPT-3.5 like normal.
I haven't tried this myself yet. But I'm surprised you didn't find it beneficial to pass the raw HTML to the chatbot (potentially after some filtering). Did `innerText` give better results than `innerHTML`?
My intuition is that the structure information in the HTML would be useful to extract structured data.
Heh, mostly as an experiment. I'd done a fair bit of scraping for some personal football apps over the past few years. Was curious about how GPT might be used when starting from first principles, as well as its abilities to solve specific challenges encountered with the traditional approach.
When this topic has come up with family and friends, folks often say that they aren't worried (yet) because while a human can be fooled, they can't yet fool readily available forensic tools, and perhaps can't ever.
I can't speak to the veracity of that claim, but as the post points out, the past several years has shown us that it doesn't matter, not in the least.
The author goes on to say how it feels inevitable that we'll see a Bannon or Stone type use this technology to create fake scandals.
I'm more worried about the grass roots efforts. Crowdsourced conspiracies like QAnon. Now they'll have more capable tools to radicalize people.
What I found particularly striking about them was how much they reminded me of both neurons and larger brain structures, as well as some of those newer, ML-assisted FMRI imagery.
Probably just coincidence and wishful thinking, but it instills a sense of daydream-like wonder all the same.
It routinely bothers me a bit that, IME, most IRL discussions of the Fermi paradox tend to omit this rather simple explanation.
Half the time it's brought up, FTL is offered as the solution. Which as best we can tell is fundamentally impossible.
That squishy or otherwise organic bodies are generally unable to travel interstellar distances has always seemed to me to be the simplest solution.
Assuming intelligent life is out there, surely there are civilizations that have destroyed themselves and so on. But lack of FTL travel would be a common constraint, regardless of all other scenarios.
It routinely bothers me a bit that, IME, most IRL discussions of the Fermi Paradox settle on this rather simple explanation when the whole idea was that this "simple explanation" was extremely unlikely, pushing speculation to more complicated and interesting hypotheses.
Emergence of life on Earth took 13.7 billion years, galactic colonization should only take millions of years. We should not expect to find the galaxy half-colonized, as this would be a staggering feat of synchronization. We should find the galaxy completely full or completely empty. It seems to be completely empty.
I doubt a civilization could survive being multi-starred.
If you can expend that kind of energy, a pilot with a bad day can destroy the whole planet. A pissed off colony in the asteroid belt can sling asteroids at the home planet, etc.
I also think you’re making a lot of assumptions but the speed of light is quite limiting in every aspect. If it takes 40 years to send a message, you need to either live a ridiculously long time — in which case your birth rate will be quite low — or figure the colonization as a one-way trip. No one would colonize another star system just for kicks, there would need to be a reason and I can’t think of a reason to colonize an entire galaxy that would make sense for a whole civilization, especially when it takes multi-decades just to send a message one way.
> A pissed off colony in the asteroid belt can sling asteroids at the home planet
If planets become indefensible then people simply won't colonize them. Problem solved. They'll stay in artificial habitats, and I would expect this to accelerate the colonization of the galaxy, if anything, because then they wouldn't need to wait for a planet to fill up before sending out the next generation of colony ships, they would just need to wait for the prime asteroids to be claimed.
> the speed of light is quite limiting in every aspect
Yes, exactly, and the non-interaction limit only needs one ship of space mormons to become exponential growth
Diffusion-limited exponential growth, to add the next layer of modeling sophistication, but the ultimate point is that you still don't need all that many generations before the galaxy is full. Just multiply the number of steps by generation time, and if you are tempted to pick a really long generation time, remember that space mormons get a vote.
> No one would colonize another star system just for kicks, there would need to be a reason and I can’t think of a reason
Planets are indefensible, as is most of space if your orbit is predictable. All you need is a body bigger than your margin of computational error, and reaction mass.
> exponential growth
My point is that in order for civilization to be multi-starred, they'd need to communicate. Once a new star is colonized, due to the constraint on light speed, they become two separate civilizations. This means each star basically starts from the beginning, each time. So, if you estimate a couple of million years for a civilization to just to consider expanding... it'd take awhile. A lot more than a few million years to colonize the galaxy because not every star will consider expanding.
> the reason is resource competition.
Resources for what, exactly? Populations self-govern growth. It isn't always pretty, since over-population means a lot of deaths. But hungry people aren't going to say "I'm hungry so I'm going to build a space ship and hunt Space Cows. Who's coming with me?"
Further, there is no evidence that dinosaurs left this planet. They had 165 million years to do so. So, it doesn't 'just take' a few million years and there is no guarantee that a civilization will expand beyond a star. Sure, you could argue that dinosaurs probably weren't intelligent, but there's no evidence for that other than a small cavity size for brains; which doesn't necessarily mean they were stupid. Whales have bigger brains than humans, but I don't see them leaving the earth any time soon either.
My point is, even if you decide to colonize another planet, you are effectively cut off from your home. Technology WILL be lost since you basically have to restart manufacturing from nothing, with a small population at that, and there are a whole different set of filters to pass through. The odds of that civilization growing to the point of wanting to move on, without dying out itself, is remarkably low.
Interestingly, colonization of stars beyond a certain distance might even be impossible without some kind of artificial gravity or cryo. Especially if it requires multiple generations to arrive.
I really like this thread. Both make good points. I still land on space being really big and really hard. Maybe so much so that multi-stellar civilization is next to impossible and multi-galactic moreso.
If you think resources are scarce on Kepler-452b, wait til you see how bad things on the Space Mormon ship. Especially since it’s 60% harder to exit the gravity well than it would be on our destination at Sol-3. We used all our lift capabilities just to get the basics to orbit. Once we get out there, it’s 1400 light years away, so will take us 5600 years to get to Sol assuming we can get the drives going full speed and still retain enough delta-v to brake in Sol orbit. If not, it may even take longer or worse - we zoom by as a blip at the edge of the system. The good news is our telescopes are pretty sure it’s habitable, but we don’t hear any techno signatures. So with any luck we arrive in 6000 years and have enough gametes in storage for the incubators to build a viable colony from. I just hope the kids behave once they get there.
Even with FTL you have to know where to go. Let's say you do 100 solar systems per year (going somewhere close to the star and some local jumps to look around.) There are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way. It takes a billion years to sequentially scan the galaxy. Optimizations in the search algorithm to cut that number down to 100 years are left as an exercise ;-)
After like day 2 my workflows would take 10-15 minutes past their trigger time to show up and be queued. And switching to the self hosted runners didn't change that. Happens every time with every workflow, whether the workflow takes 10 seconds or 10 minutes.