Copy/paste instead of linking because Lemmy doesn’t like me>

I can shad a light on that! […]

When we’re in a fast paces dialogue with a high level of rapport I start speaking my thoughts before they’re finished - and it happens that a thought starts out as “my opinion is …” And in the middle transfers to “oh it would be way more interesting what your thoughts on this are!”.

Or I’m mentally distracted and fall back to the monologue voice …

Either way: the flow of the sentence already started as a statement and now I want to make sure that it’s clear that your input is wanted and appreciated - and instead of saying “and perhaps that sounded like a statement but please treat it as a question” I fall back to “question mark.”

Oh I can shad a light on that! Hope it’s not en pair with the shelter animal hunting though.

When we’re in a fast paces dialogue with a high level of rapport I start speaking my thoughts before they’re finished - and it happens that a thought starts out as “my opinion is …” And in the middle transfers to “oh it would be way more interesting what your thoughts on this are!”. Or I’m mentally distracted and fall back to the monologue voice …

Either way: the flow of the sentence already started as a statement and now I want to make sure that it’s clear that your input is wanted and appreciated - and instead of saying “and perhaps that sounded like a statement but please treat it as a question” I fall back to “question mark.”

There isn’t a global law about age verification they countries could be exempt of. It’s individual countries doing it.

And on top of that the laws are different from what I’ve seen, in the UK for example you have to fullfil certain criteria to fall under that law. But frankly it seems to be a mess in my opinion.

This is what an age verification service says about it:

https://www.yoti.com/blog/understanding-age-verification-online-safety-act/

In the very first post on this thread I pointed out that I’m not talking about this specific case at all.

To your last point I fully agree!

For the first point: that’s how I understood you - what I failed to convey: adultsshould fall victim more in cases like this because parents can be a protective shield of a kind that grown-ups lag.

Children on their own stand easy less of a chance but are very rarely on their own.

And to be honest I think it doesn’t change result of requirements for action both in general but respectfully for language based bots, both from a legal as well as an educational point of view.

I see your point but there is one major difference between adults and children: adults are by default fully responsible for themselves z children are not.

As for your question: I won’t blame the parents here in the slightest because they will likely put more than enough blame on themselves. Instead I’ll try to keep it general:

Independent of technology, what a parent can do is learn behavior and communication patterns that can be signs of mental illness.

That’s independent of the technology.

This is a big task because the border between normal puberty and behavior that warrants action is slim to non-existent.

Overall I wish for way better education for parents both in terms of age appropriate patterns as well as what kind of help is available to them depending on their country and culture.

Sadly there is no answer for you available because many of the processes around this are hidden.

I can only chime in from my own amateur experiments and there are answer is a clear “depends”. Most adjustments are made either via additional training data. This simply means that you take more data and feed it indi an already trained LLM. The result is again an LLM black box with all its stochastic magic.

The other big way are system prompts. Those are simply instructions that already get interpreted as a part of te request and provide limitations.

These can get white fancy by now, in the sense of “when the following query asks you to count something run this python script with whatever you’re supposed to count as input, the result will be a json that you can take then and do XYZ with it.”

Or more simple: you tell the model to use other programs and how to use them.

For both approaches I don’t need to maintain list: For the first one I have no way of knowing what it’s doing in detail and I just need to keep the documents themselves.

For the second one it’s literally a human readable text.

The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.

For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)

For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.

Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.

Oh I’m aware of paper but didn’t associate papery things with … Well paper itself I guess that’s the flaw. I wouldn’t describe a tree as having a wooden expression either!

Could someone explain the joke to me? I guess somewhere the skin of garlic is called paper? Or is there another play on words?

The only thing I’ve found on the garlic Wikipedia is the description of its skin as papery but that’s it…

You won’t get the AI stuff through. I’m working on a machine like you described and drilled a hole in it to provide power to a 3070 as the power supply wasn’t beefy enough (and server power supplies are too expensive compared to a hole).

This is the first generation where I can play around with local LLMs from what I can tell - even used the hardware for that is way more expensive :(

Friend, there is only one kind of dumb question: those that are statements with a question marks at the end of are simply a vehicle to place a statement.

And even those are fine by me if the asking being realizes this within the discussion. (“Why are we allowing women to vote if they are that much dumber than men?” is a stupid question in my book - and even that can lead to “oh wow I always just assumed that to be true but (data/argument) made me realize that I was wrong!”. Rare but can happen…)

Worked for me, hope the copy paste does as well

Mysterious Antimatter Physics Discovered at the Large Hadron Collider

The LHCb experiment has observed a new difference between matter and antimatter in particles called baryons

By Clara Moskowitz edited by Lee Billings

Baryon particle illustration.

Thomas Parsons/Science Source

Matter and antimatter are like mirror opposites: they are the same in every respect except for their electric charge. Well, almost the same—very occasionally, matter and antimatter behave differently from each other, and when they do, physicists get very excited. Now scientists at the world’s largest particle collider have observed a new class of antimatter particles breaking down at a different rate than their matter counterparts. The discovery is a significant step in physicists’ quest to solve one of the biggest mysteries in the universe: why there is something rather than nothing.

The world around us is made of matter—the stars, planets, people and things that populate our cosmos are composed of atoms that contain only matter, and no antimatter. But it didn’t have to be this way. Our best theories suggest that when the universe was born it had equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and when the two made contact, they annihilated one another. For some reason, a small excess of matter survived and went on to create the physical world. Why? No one knows.

So physicists have been on the hunt for any sign of difference between matter and antimatter, known in the field as a violation of “charge conjugation–parity symmetry,” or CP violation, that could explain why some matter escaped destruction in the early universe.

Today physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)’s LHCb experiment published a paper in the journal Nature announcing that they’ve measured CP violation for the first time in baryons—the class of particles that includes the protons and neutrons inside atoms. Baryons are all built from triplets of even smaller particles called quarks. Previous experiments dating back to 1964 had seen CP violation in meson particles, which unlike baryons are made of a quark-antiquark pair. In the new experiment, scientists observed that baryons made of an up quark, a down quark and one of their more exotic cousins called a beauty quark decay more often than baryons made of the antimatter versions of those same three quarks.

Magnet for the LHCb (large hadron collider beauty) particle detector at CERN (the European particle physics laboratory) near Geneva, Switzerland.

CERN/Science Source

“This is a milestone in the search for CP violation,” says Xueting Yang of Peking University, a member of the LHCb team that analyzed the data behind the measurement. “Since baryons are the building blocks of the everyday things around us, the first observation of CP violation in baryons opens a new window for us to search for hints of new physics.”

The LHCb experiment is the only machine in the world that can summon sufficient energies to make baryons containing beauty quarks. It does this by accelerating protons to nearly the speed of light, then smashing them together in about 200 million collisions every second. As the protons dissolve, the energy of the crash springs new particles into being.

“It is an amazing measurement,” says theoretical physicist Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study, who was not involved in the experiment. "Baryons containing b [beauty] quarks are relatively hard to produce, and CP violation is very delicate and hard to study.”

The 69-foot-long, 6,000-ton LHCb experiment can track all the particles created during the collisions and the many different ways they can break down into smaller particles. “The detector is like a gigantic four-dimensional camera that is able to record the passage of all the particles through it,” says LHCb spokesperson and study co-author Vincenzo Vagnoni of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics (INFN). “With all this information, we can reconstruct precisely what happened in the initial collision and everything that came out and then decayed.”

The matter-antimatter difference scientists observed in this case is relatively small, and it fits within predictions of the Standard Model of particle physics—the reigning theory of the subatomic realm. This puny amount of CP violation, however, cannot account for the profound asymmetry between matter and antimatter we see throughout space.

“The measurement itself is a great achievement, but the result, to me, is not surprising,” says Jessica Turner, a theoretical physicist at Durham University in England, who was not involved in the research. “The observed CP violation seems to be in line with what has been measured before in the quark sector, and we know that is not enough to produce the observed baryon asymmetry.”

To understand how matter got the upper hand in the early universe, physicists must find new ways that matter and antimatter diverge, most likely via particles that have yet to be seen. “There should be a new class of particles that were present in the early universe, which exhibit a much larger amount of this behavior,” Vagnoni says. “We are trying to find little discrepancies between what we observe and what is predicted by the Standard Model. If we find a discrepancy, then we can pinpoint what is wrong.”

The researchers hope to discover more cracks in the Standard Model as the experiment keeps running. Eventually LHCb should collect about 30 times more data than was used for this analysis, which will allow physicists to search for CP violation in particle decays that are even rarer than the one observed here. So stay tuned for an answer to why anything exists at all.

One could argue they a reading service should not alter the thing that’s read. Android is not a quantum state!

Understandable, he was right very often and “only” his tone was…unfiltered. but I ignore the “was right” part when using that phrasing :)

I’d like to imagine that this would be close to the phrasing Linus himself would choose, although I could be off of course!

Take a sentence with 200 characters then.

And your opinion is exactly that and doesnt match security research:

For the following you’re not the target group but others reading this who might want to make their lifes easier. Just from your way of writing I at least don’t expect that minor sources like okta or the NCSC will change your mind.

( article links with high level descriptions and links to their primary sources)

https://www.okta.com/identity-101/password-vs-passphrase/

https://www.4bis.com/passphrase-vs-complicated-passwords-passphrases-are-best/

https://specopssoft.com/blog/passphrase-best-practice-guide/

I really don’t enjoy Linus’ content without context I have to admit.

He was an absolute dipshit back then and he’s one of the few people I’ve read about who not only acknowledged that but also put effort into changing it - and succeeded.

Yeah the newer mails are not as funny to third parties anymore but I’m really happy for him and especially the kernel devs around him.

There’s a xkcd for that of course! Linking directly to the explain as it has more info but the important thing is: password guidelines tricked humans into thinking in a machine way about safe passwords but long pass phrases are more secure from an entropy point of view and way easier to remember!

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/936:_Password_Strength

DHL. Fucking DHL. Not sure if it fits your question but I got triggered badly here.

They removed all forms of contact except WhatsApp and their shitty z broken chat bot. If there is ever a use case for LLM than this is it. But they use s system that can either sell you stamps or breaks.

Oh but you can call them. Do you can talk to there chat bot. Once you’ve broken it enough for it to grant an audience with a human being the connection drops.

I very rarely get worked up by broken systems but someone else chose to use this shit shoe and I’m now imprisoned in their web of bullshit.

Oh yeah I see…

As some old philosopher once said: “shit’s fucked, yo”.

Seems to be appropriate here.