That seems impossible (unless maybe you meant to write "predates", and even then it seems to only be about 3 years).

The comic was published on 9 February 2007 [0].

The PS3 was first released in November 2006. I haven't watched the video yet, but its description says "2010 saw the first hacks for the Playstation 3".

[0] https://xkcd.com/221/info.0.json

I believe this has been around for a while; it's probably just been rolled out to more regions (Germany, France, and Italy, according to the article).

It's annoying, but thankfully it's a single checkbox in the settings to disable it (uncheck "Suggestions from sponsors").

> Note: Certain parts of Firefox Suggest are currently available only in some regions.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-suggest

100 W sockets? All the flights I've been on that provided power have had a really low current USB A port that can barely keep my phone from discharging when the screen is on.

Try traveling abroad with a prepaid data SIM (or limited roaming data allowance).

Plenty of websites already have comically huge pointless images (often then scaled down to tiny sizes for display). No need to make the problem worse.

Even though it's called "T9 Speed Test", it seems to default to T9 being off, and you have to actually click on the T9 link at the top right to enable it. Really confusing at first!

It's not real Python. It's essentially a made-up language that resembles a subset of Python.

That said, if I was building a small ugly toy Python implementation, I would probably also not implement long integers. Or the power operator. At least not in the first iteration.

It doesn't matter if you're losing money on paper, since the fee is on sales, not profit.

No it’s based on “net income”: revenue - expenses

> But there are a handful of designated platforms that aren’t paying anything in the first round as they reported a loss during the preceding financial year — including Amazon, Pinterest, Snapchat and Wikimedia.

Where is that quote from? The OP literally says it's based on "annual global sales", and so does this:

"6 % of the annual worldwide turnover"

https://streamlex.eu/articles/dsa-en-art-52/

Thats for fines - the comment I was replying to was referring to the annual fee not fines:

> "must also file transparency reports, detail risk mitigation plans and pay an annual fee to the European Commission."

> This is just another shake down. Quickly becoming the least business friendly place on Earth.

Ah I understand now, thank you, my mistake.

Which is also with good reason, as there's tons of ways to make your profit basically zero or even negative.

OK, so the two options are:

A) Claude really produced this counterexample

B) A mathematician working for Anthropic solved a problem mathematicians have been working on for more than a century, and then credited it to Claude for PR purposes

If you believe B is more likely, why would you then believe a proof in the form of a chat log, when said chat log could itself have been faked by Anthropic way more easily than solving the mathematical problem in the first place?

The concern is that there could have been expert knowledge input, whose importance/worth we are unable to evaluate.

I don’t believe a mathematician produced the counter example secretly, but how much did they contribute to the result?

AI isn’t magic, so to evaluate the value delta, you need to know the value of the input.

While I agree that we need the inputs to properly evaluate what this means for LLM capabilities, I don't really believe that the amount of knowledge input matters much for the overall significance of the result.

These kinds of results are interesting for LLMs because mathematicians have been working on them for decades. If the result doesn't already exist, there's no way it's in the training data, and if mathematicians have been unsuccessfully tackling the problem for decades, it is believable that the use of a new tool made the result possible, even if guided by a great mathematician.

Yes, but the question is the extent to which the new tool was guided by the mathematician.

Are we talking a bicycle, powered by a human stepping on the pedals; or a rocket that will fly to the moon on its own with people inside?

Don't you want to know? I mean, doesn't everyone want to know?

Yes, of course, that would be interesting info to have. I just mean that from what we have already we can reasonably infer that the LLM played a role in the result being obtained.

If I am not mistaken, all of the flurry of novel results has come from existing mathematicians. This makes me suspect that the models aren't at the level where just any layman can get results. They require a skilled human in the loop to keep them on the rails and to properly explore the solution space.

Right, that's what I'm trying to understand, the extent to which models need expert guidance. I don't doubt an LLM was used, I just want to know- how.

Weirder has happened: https://mathsci.fandom.com/wiki/The_Haruhi_Problem

> if rustc emits machine code and then cargo immediately executes it, there's the same opportunity for end user memory being corrupted (due to miscompilation) as if rustc and cargo shared a code base

Your tests run in an entirely separate process from the compiler (and from cargo). This makes it very different from memory corruption in the compiler:

- The test process can only corrupt its own memory.

- You don't need "unsafe" to run tests. Just the ability to start another process.

- If you're cross-compiling, you wouldn't even be able to run the tests on the same machine (without emulation/compatibility layers)

Does roc run tests in the same process as the compiler?

> Does roc run tests in the same process as the compiler?

We do for tests of pure functions, yes.

> Your tests run in an entirely separate process from the compiler (and from cargo).

That's a great point and a relevant distinction, although Rust tests can run arbitrary I/O, so it's not like having them be in a separate process means memory corruption is harmless! :)

True, but not sure how it's relevant - you don't need memory corruption for the test to perform arbitrary I/O. And even if you trust the tests to not do anything bad, you don't need memory corruption for this to be an issue - any bug in the code emitted by the compiler could cause bad things to happen.

But all of this is ultimately completely unrelated to the concept of "unsafe". You can delete your home directory just fine in safe Rust/Go/Python/etc. You can write a compiler that emits broken code in the same languages; even in a 100% pure functional language with 0 side effects and a perfect bug-free implementation.

> apparently the very first person to encounter it

We don't really know that.

It may have been the first person able to complain - given you couldn't even file a support ticket without getting through this prompt!