They're flying in mountain wave. Basically, the wind flows over the mountains and you get ripples downstream. You can ride the upward parts of those ripples. They eventually ran out of mountains.
Winter tends to have more favorable conditions for creating these ripples. It needs more than wind, you also need the right temperature profile in the atmosphere.
Darkness is a big problem. Normally you just have to wait for sunrise to fly, and land before sunset. These guys used night vision goggles to avoid that limitation.
LLMs produce good output and bad output. The trick is figuring out which is which. They excel at tasks where good output is easily distinguished. For example, I've had a lot of success with making small reproducers for bugs. I see weird behavior A coming from giant pile of code B, figure out how to trigger A in a small example. It can often do so, and when it gets it wrong it's easy to detect because its example doesn't actually do A. The people sending useless bug reports aren't checking for good output.
I've had multiple reports with elaborate proofs of concept that boil down to things like calling dlopen() on a path to a malicious library and saying dlopen has a security vulnerability.
If you go to trial you are saying you are not guilty of the offence.
If you are not guilty the ideally you are acquitted.
if you are guilty, you’re hoping to get away with it.
I struggle to see how hoping to get away with it, is showing remorse. If anything I certainly think it says that it shows little or no remorse, since you believe that other people should receive no justice for crimes that you committed against them.
I'm not saying it doesn't logically follow, I'm saying it shouldn't legally follow. Exercising your legal rights should never have negative legal consequences.
Consider pleading the fifth. You can't be compelled to incriminate yourself. That doesn't just mean they can't coerce a confession out of you. It also means that the law does not infer guilt from a refusal to testify, even though logically a person who refuses to testify is more likely to be guilty than one who testifies freely in their own defense. If you couldn't be compelled to testify, but at the same time your refusal could be considered evidence of guilt, then you don't really have the right not to testify.
Same sort of thing here. If exercising your right to a trial increases your penalty then in what sense do you actually have that right? To put it in starker terms, imagine if people who previously spoke critically of the President were given a harsher penalty than those who spoke positively. That's a clear free speech violation. If exercising your free speech rights can't increase your penalty, exercising your right to a trial shouldn't either.
I understand the constitutional point you're making, but I think we're conflating two things: exercising your right to trial, and showing remorse for what you did.
The right to trial isn't being penalised. You get a fair trial either way. What's being rewarded is accepting responsibility and saving the court's time. That's not the same as punishing you for exercising a right.
I'll grant that when the sentencing gap is extreme, the distinction becomes academic. If you're facing 20 years at trial versus 2 for pleading, then functionally you're being coerced regardless of the theoretical justification.
But in principle, rewarding people who show remorse is part of justice. Someone who accepts what they did and shows contrition is different from someone who forces the state to prove its case. Both have the right to trial, but treating them differently at sentencing isn't inherently unjust.
The question is whether the gap has become so large that it's effectively coercive. That's an empirical question about how plea bargains operate in practice, not a constitutional one about whether they can exist at all, which, if I understood it right, is your position.
I'd argue that any gap is coercive, just as I'd object to giving criminals even one minute of additional prison time for being critical of the President.
Someone who forces the state to prove its case is merely exercising their legal right to do so. Giving them a harsher sentence for this is effectively punishing them for exercising their legal rights. You can word this as rewarding people who don't force the state to prove its case i.e. people who don't exercise that particular legal right, but it's the same thing.
You seem to be generalizing a whole group of people. I was careful to say "certain and particular J6ers." Collective punishment is not a thing in the US justice system
It's a bit different. WOW64 is a compatibility layer that intercepts calls into system libraries from 32-bit apps and translates them into calls to 64-bit libraries. macOS shipped both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of all system libraries, no translation involved.
I’m not very familiar with the Windows side, but it sounds harder to create but easier to maintain. Once the 32->64 translation shims are implemented, you’re done. They’ll keep working. If you’re not adding new 32-bit APIs then there’s no more work to be done. Maintaining a parallel set of libraries means each change has to work on both targets.
Most large C code bases aren’t really written in C. They’re written in an almost-C that includes certain extensions and undefined behavior. In this case, it uses inline assembly (an extension) and manipulating pointers as integers (undefined behavior).
While I’m always thankful when people give the broad perspective and context in a discussion, which your comment does. The specifics of this particular project’s usage of almost-C is not something I could have quickly figured out, so thanks. For such a large program, an to be as old as Qt is at this point, I find it impressive and slightly amazing that it has in some sense self-limited its divergence from standard C. It would be interesting to see what something like SQLite includes in its almost-C.
The more portable a project is, the less weird stuff it’s likely to do. The almost-C parts become more of a headache the more OSes and compilers you support. This seem pretty tame, and I’d expect SQLite to be similar. I work on some projects that only support a single OS, compiler, and CPU architecture and it’s full of dependencies on things like the OS’s actual address space (few 64-bit archs use all 64 bits).
My first job was on a large-ish software product that ran on several completely incompatible platforms - various Unixes, early Windows, IBM mainframes, etc - and window systems. At first, making all of them happy seemed like annoying busy-work.
But our code was extremely clean and extremely well-factored, because it had to be. And after porting our product to the first two or three new platforms, the later ones were much much easier to do. Lesson learned.
Since (say) the 1990s, it feels like "the world" has slowly converged to pretty much (a) the browser; (b) desktop computers - Windows, Linux, Mac; (c) phones/tablets; (d) everything else (mainframes, embedded, industrial, what have you - stuff that most people will never deal with). And portability across different platforms is no longer all that important. Which is fine, but I do miss how the need for portability forced us to work with discipline and be relentless on quality.
That’s what “catch” means here. As in, catch it in the act. Tools that make bugs crash more reliably and closer to the source of the problem are extremely valuable.
Winter tends to have more favorable conditions for creating these ripples. It needs more than wind, you also need the right temperature profile in the atmosphere.
Darkness is a big problem. Normally you just have to wait for sunrise to fly, and land before sunset. These guys used night vision goggles to avoid that limitation.
reply