It’s a bit of a stretch calling it a plastic, as it’s not petroleum based from what I’ve read.

It might, possibly, be a viable use case if the LLM produced the summary for an editor, who then confirmed it’s veracity and appropriateness to the article and posted it themselves.

He’d obviously read up on 17th century witchcraft. It is well known that you may fascinate a woman by giving her a piece of cheese.

My kids have a pile of cardboard screws that they use to turn boxes into all sorts of things; rockets, forts, cars and you could probably make organizers, shelves and the like too. The screws grip the cardboard surprisingly well, and it’s easy to make even quite large structures robust.

Could you let me know what sort of models you’re using? Everything I’ve tried has basically been so bad it was quicker and more reliable to to the job myself. Most of the models can barely write boilerplate code accurately and securely, let alone anything even moderately complex.

I’ve tried to get them to analyse code too, and that’s hit and miss at best, even with small programs. I’d have no faith at all that they could handle anything larger; the answers they give would be confident and wrong, which is easy to spot with something small, but much harder to catch with a large, multi process system spread over a network. It’s hard enough for humans, who have actual context, understanding and domain knowledge, to do it well, and I’ve, personally, not seen any evidence that an LLM (which is what I’m assuming you’re referring to) could do anywhere near as well. I don’t doubt that they flag some issues, but without a comprehensive, human, review of the system architecture, implementation and code, you can’t be sure what they’ve missed, and if you’re going to do that anyway, you’ve done the job yourself!

Having said that, I’ve no doubt that things will improve, programming languages have well defined syntaxes and so they should be some of the easiest types of text for an LLM to parse and build a context from. If that can be combined with enough domain knowledge, a description of the deployment environment and a model that’s actually trained for and tuned for code analysis and security auditing, it might be possible to get similar results to humans.

I’m unlikely to do a full code audit, unless something about it doesn’t pass the ‘sniff test’. I will often go over the main code flows, the issue tracker, mailing lists and comments, positive or negative, from users on other forums.

I mean, if you’re not doing that, what are you doing, just installing it and using it??!? Where’s the fun in that? (I mean this at least semi seriously, you learn a lot about the software you’re running if you put in some effort to learn about it)

‘AI’ as we currently know it, is terrible at this sort of task. It’s not capable of understanding the flow of the code in any meaningful way, and tends to raise entirely spurious issues (see the problems the curl author has with being overwhealmed for example). It also wont spot actually malicious code that’s been included with any sort of care, nor would it find intentional behaviour that would be harmful or counterproductive in the particular scenario you want to use the program.

A valid point, trackers often give you a certain amount of upload credit for free, and there are often other ways to earn those credits too, so all users’ ratios would be above 1.0, but that should have read “A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio of 1.0” if we’re looking at just the data transfer itself.

A closed group of users can all have a seed ratio above 1.0, but it’s a bit of a contrived set up. For simplicity, in the following examples we assume that each file is the same size, but this also works for other combinations.

Consider the smallest group, two users. If user A seeds a file and user B downloads it, whilst B seeds a different file, which A downloads, both users will have a ratio of 1.0 as they’ve up and down loaded the same amount.

For three users, A seeds a file, B and C then download a different half each, which they then share with each other. A has a total (upload, download) of (1,0), whilst B and C have (0.5,1). If you repeat this with B seeding and A and C downloading, then C seeding to A and B, you get each peer uploading 2 files worth of data, and downloading 2 files worth, for a ratio of 1.0 each.

You can keep adding peers and keep the ratios balanced, so it is possible for all the users on a private tracker to have a 1.0 ratio, but it’s very unlikely to work out like that in real life, which is why you have other ways to boost your ratio.

No, you cannot meaningfully delete your posts or comments, but that’s not because of any issue with lemmy, but because you posted them publically. They will be archived and indexed in other services.

It is always best to remember that all your activity here is public, and will be linked to your username. Given that, you may wish to minimise any personally identifying information you post, and use several accounts to split up your activities by topic.

No, I don’t have anything of that sort. Feel free to ask here if you’d like, but I’m just using the information I can find on the web.

I’m only going to do this very roughly, only for the transport and using US prices (as they’re easier to find), because the total cost of mining, transporting and dumping that much material is astronomical compared to the $70m budget. Even the transport cost alone are an order of magnitude higher.

Soil has a density of between 1,200 and 1,700 kilograms or 2,645 and 3,747 pounds per cubic metre.

I couldn’t easily find bulk rates for trunking soil, but bulk trucking rates for grain seem to be in the right area from what I can see. A truckload of up to 80,000lb costs somewhat over $6 per mile.

Given the weight limit per truck, and taking a middling estimate of soil density of 3000lb/m^3 (rock would be heavier and so increase the cost), we can transport around 80000/3000=26m^3 per truck, at a cost of at least 615=$90, or $3.46 per m^3. Our budget for the whole operation was 75,000,000/(3,500,000100)=$0.20 per m^3.

From those figures we can see that simply trucking the spoil fron the operation would be more than 15 times the cost of paying the landowners. That ignores all of the other costs. Local rates may be sonewhat cheaper, but probably not enough to make a serious difference, and you’d need to ship over 10 million truckloads of dirt, which would put massive strain on local infrastructure too.

If I read your measurements correctly, you’re talking about digging up over 350 million cubic metres of soil and rock, transporting them 15km and dumping them safely. Comparing that to the cost of paying the land owners gives you a budget of approximately $0.20 per cubic metre. Ignoring the digging costs, you’d have to check what your local rates for trucking bulk soil would be over that distance, but I suspect they’re more than that on their own.

Then you have the rather signicicant issue of what to do with the literal mountain of soil and rock you need to dispose of. Just dumping it is going to cause pretty serious changes to the local environment, not least of which would be a new mountain.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

• Robert Frost

Add on the climb of bitcoin and thats pretty much it.

Your points are well made. I was just considering the passage as quoted, rather than in a larger context. As a response to Social Darwinism, and a demonstration of cooperative behaviours, it makes a lot more sense. I may have to add some of his writings to my reading list, although, as you can probably judge from the time it’s taken me to reply, I don’t seem to have much spare time right now!

Cats’ social behaviour, when there’s no resource shortage, is fascinating. They seem to go from hissing, growling and general agression at a new member to head rubs and purring remarkably quickly, although when food gets short all bets are off again. Dropping the agression is beneficial to the individual, as they’re less likely to be injured, and coincidentally helps the group. Cats are an unusual species in that they naturally form social groups where rest, but have individual teritories where they hunt. If you haven’t seen it before, you might enjoy a documentary series called ‘The secret life of cats’ by the BBC. They monitor various groups of cats to see how they interact and go about their lives.

Whilst you’re right about privacy not being binary and the need to create your own threat model, the problem is that all the different parties that collect your data trade it, so if you leave one avenue open, the others that you tried to block are likely to get your data anyway. Whether this fits your personal threat model is probably an individual decision.

It sucks that we need such an extensive amount of work put in to make devices private

The issue is that, short of the extremes suggested in places like privacyguides, you’re not really making the device private. You could argue that you’re making it more private, but the counter-argument is that you’re still leaking so much data that you haven’t significantly improved your situation.

Doing something probably is better than doing nothing, but it’s not going to satisfy those who seek actual privacy. If you’ve got a particular leak that you’re worried about it’s definitely worth looking to address it though.

Try writting ‘Deceased’ on it and return it. At the very least it’ll give any human who sees it a momentary pause, and maybe they’ll take it more seriously.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply, and my appologies for only responding to what appear to be the key points, life has decided to get busy.

You are correct in saying that the animal behaviours discussed are largely evolutionary, the question is what the driver is. Maybe I am being too cynical, but in each example I see a behaviour that is tailored to the benefit of the individual and their genetic line, rather than to the benefit of the group as a whole.

The horses forming a defensive ring have their young on the inside, and are acting to protect them, not the young of others. The person acting to put out the fire at a neighbour’s house seeks to stop it spreading to their house (look at reports of historical fires in cities for many examples) or to encourage others to help them in times of trouble. Kittens playing together rather than attempting to kill their siblings benefit directly from the play, and lack the necessary strength to kill anyway. Other species’ young are not so delicate. Any altruistic behaviour can be framed as selfish when you consider the benefits the individual gains, both in terms of a positive feeling and in terms of social ‘credit’ for want of a better term, although that take may really be too cynical for most.

One of the most obvious ways to see how selfish these behaviours are is to see what happens when they don’t work out for some reason, say lack of resources, or where a larger benefit can be gained by acting differently. Lions kill each others cubs, in many species the strong will monopolise resources to the detriment of weaker members of society, others will steal cached food from members of their own kind. Even herd animals will leave the slowest members behind if it means personal survival.

As I said, I do think humans would benefit from much more cooperation, but I think Kropotkin’s point is weak and mostly relies on the reader thinking the animals mentioned are cute and fluffy, or majestic, rather than thinking about their behavior. I think his point would have been better made by comparison to either bees or ants, which clearly operate communally, with little regard to individual benefit. They’re perhaps not so pleasant a comparrison, and are notably hierarchical with a ‘queen’ as the topmost tier, but, to me, they seem to fit his argument better.