Latest Posts (20 found)
Unsung Today

“59.94Hz is standard on televisions in North America.”

A big screen carries with it different UI expectations, and how that manifests itself in Apple TV’s Settings app, is that there’s always room for an additional hint about the thing you’ve just selected. So yes, I have been exploring Apple TV’s Settings after the recent update like any normal person would, and I have noticed how well-written those are. They help navigate difficult technical things, and they’re not afraid to get conversational, or offer advice, or even commentary… but they always seem to stay succinct and on-point. I think they’re worth studying. = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/1.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/1.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> 59.94Hz is standard on televisions in North America and other regions using NTSC. = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/2.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/2.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Automatically select the best audio output. Some TVs require 16 bit. = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/3.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/3.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Enjoy movies and music without disturbing others. Experience softer sound effects and music, but keep all the detail of the original sound level. = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/4.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/4.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Apple TV will re-encode audio to send compressed Dolby Digital 5.1 to your speakers. ¶ Use only if your equipment doesn’t support Atmos or multi-channel PCM. = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/5.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/59.94hz-is-standard-on-televisions-in-north-america/5.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Switch Control allows you to use your Apple TV by sequentially highlighting items on the screen that can be activated through an adaptive accessory. À propos Unsung’s first post ever , whoever works on these did not abuse the privilege. It would be so easy to just keep writing, but if a hint is not necessary, it just doesn’t appear: …with one exception, which is the screensaver section. Here, the hint strings feel redundant, mostly repeating what the label already said:

0 views

Data Broker Radaris Loses Domains in Privacy Fight

The consumer data broker Radaris.com has long had a reputation for ignoring requests to remove personal information from its vast empire of people-search services online. That reputation caught up with the company recently in a lawsuit alleging Radaris violated a New Jersey privacy law that provides for hefty fines against data brokers that publish personal information on state law enforcement officials. In the face of repeated stonewalling and prevarication by attorneys for Radaris, the judge in the case ordered that radaris.com and more than a dozen other data broker domains be transferred to the plaintiffs. The radaris.com website, prior to the domain transfer to Atlas. In February 2024, Radaris was sued by Atlas Data Privacy Corp , a company that has been pursuing data brokers alleged to be violating a New Jersey statute called Daniel’s Law . The statute allows state law enforcement officials, government personnel, judges and their families to have their information completely removed from commercial data brokers and people-search services, and provides for fines of $1,000 per violation against companies that ignore removal requests. Less than a month after Atlas sued Radaris, KrebsOnSecurity published a deep dive into the Radaris co-founders — Igor and Dmitry Lubarsky (also spelled Lybarsky) — Russian-born brothers living in Massachusetts who operate a dizzying array of people-search companies as well as a number of Russian language dating services and affiliate programs. Attorneys for the Lubarsky brothers threatened to sue for defamation if the story wasn’t removed and an apology issued. Their attorney asserted that our reporting was wildly inaccurate, and that the true owners of the company were Ukrainians living in Ukraine. The Lubarsky brothers Dmitry or “Dan” (left) and Gary/Igor. KrebsOnSecurity doubled down and showed how the Lubarsky brothers built and operated Radaris and other data broker companies using a fictitious CEO’s name . Our follow-up story noted that Radaris’s attorney — a lawyer with the Boston Law Group named Val Gurvits — admitted his clients had invented the CEO pseudonym “ Gary Norden ,” and that Radaris also had issued multiple press releases over the years that quoted the fake CEO while seeking money from potential investors. Attorneys for Radaris waited until the last minute to appear in court and contest what was all but certain to be a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and then told the court that Atlas had failed to serve the real owners and operators of Radaris and several of its sister data broker companies. Atlas re-filed the lawsuit in June 2025, this time dramatically expanding the number of Radaris family data brokers accused of violating Daniel’s Law. Matt Adkisson , president and CEO of Atlas, said Radaris turned to a tried-and-true playbook: Delaying in court until the last possible minute, and playing shell games with Radaris’s true country of origin and the individuals listed as owners and operators of these sites. “We refer to this period as their island-hopping phase. Privacy policies changed constantly, and new entities kept appearing from places like the Marshall Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and Seychelles,” Adkisson told KrebsOnSecurity. “Behind the scenes, it felt like a shell game. Defense lawyers told the court that certain entities merely operated the domains and were the proper parties to sue. But by the time a judgment neared, those entities would be discarded and new entities would appear. Meanwhile, the lawyers claimed the other entities that actually owned the domains should not be held responsible.” Adkisson said when the defendants updated their terms of service to state that Radaris was suddenly managed by a company in the Marshall Islands, Atlas hired an investigator in that country and soon learned the brand new entity that Radaris claimed was managing the company didn’t even exist yet. Mr. Gurvits stepped forward as Radaris’s attorney in a class action lawsuit the company temporarily lost in 2017 because it never contested the claim in court. When the plaintiffs told the judge they couldn’t collect on the $7.5 million default judgment, the court ordered the domain registry Verisign to transfer the radaris.com domain name to the plaintiffs. Mr. Gurvits appealed that verdict, arguing the lawsuit hadn’t named the actual owners of the Radaris domain name — a Cyprus company called Bitseller Expert Limited  — and thus taking the domain away would be a violation of their due process rights. The judge in the 2017 case ruled in Radaris’ favor — halting the domain transfer — and told the plaintiffs they could refile their complaint. Soon after, the operator of Radaris changed from Bitseller to Andtop Company , an entity  formed  (PDF) in the  Marshall Islands in Oct. 2020. The plaintiffs never re-filed their lawsuit. A mind map of various entities tied to Radaris and the company’s co-founders. Click to enlarge. “That seemed to be their modus operandi,” said Raj Parikh , a partner at PEM Law in New Jersey who handles most of the Daniel’s Law litigation for Atlas. “In the past, they won by attrition. Plaintiffs’ attorneys tired of the procedural games and just gave up. That strategy worked for a decade, and it probably would have worked in this case too, since any financial recovery from foreign actors will be difficult. But we were acutely aware of the threat this website posed to law enforcement officers and other public officials in New Jersey, and decided early on to commit whatever time and resources were necessary to remove that threat.” On August 26, the judge in the New Jersey case found the defendants were given multiple chances to appear and defend the claims against them but had failed to do so. Mr. Gurvits declined to comment on the case, saying it had been assigned to another attorney, a Mr. Victor Worms . In response to questions, Mr. Worms asserted the New Jersey court transferred Radaris.com to Atlas as part of a default judgment against Radaris.com, which is not a legal entity. “We have made a motion to vacate that default judgment on the grounds that it is void since a non-entity has no legal capacity to sue or be sued,” Worms replied. “We also intend to pursue all appropriate appeals because we believe the transfer of Radaris.com amounts to a forfeiture in violation of various constitutional principles.” While radaris.com still comes up prominently in results when searching online for U.S. residents by name, the domain no longer sells detailed personal dossiers on millions of Americans. Its homepage now displays a notice from Atlas, as well as links to our previous reporting on Radaris. Atlas told KrebsOnSecurity that it has obtained more than 10,000 emails and documents in the course of litigation, and that those messages confirm our previous reporting on the owners and operators of Radaris and its myriad companies. Atlas said the emails clearly establish that the nominal legal vehicles — Radaris America, Inc. ; Bitseller Expert Limited ; Digital Orbit Corp ; Core Solutions Group Inc ; Lucky Solutions Inc ; Virtura Corp ; Veripages Inc. ; Nuform Solutions Inc. ; Growth Data Advisors Inc. ; Property Experts, Inc — are all administered by the same three or four people from the same mailboxes, share one bank or payment card set, and are all managed from one virtual office address. “The corpus establishes, with documentary evidence generated independently by banks, payment processors, hosting providers, registrars, software-as-a-service vendors and the operators’ own systems, that radaris.com and at least twenty-five other people-search websites are one operation run by a small Boston-area group whose administrative, financial and technical functions sit on the difive.com mail domain and its successors (centerex.com, scienteco.com, eprofit.com, realmo.com, pub360.com),” reads a summary shared by Atlas. Atlas said the emails show Radaris.com earns approximately $42,000 a month, while Veripages.com earns around $45,000 monthly via its partnership with the Lifetime Value Company , a marketing and advertising firm whose brands include PeopleLooker , PeopleSmart , NumberGuru , and Bumper , a car history site. According to Atlas, the emails also showed the Radaris family of websites earns as much as $25,000 each month from their partnership with Onerep , a company that claims to help people remove their information from people-search sites. In March 2024, KrebsOnSecurity revealed how the Belarusian founder of Onerep had launched and operated dozens of people-search sites over the years and was continuing to operate one of them (Nuwber), effectively spreading the disease and selling the cure. The domain radaris.com now redirects to this notice from Atlas about the court-ordered domain transfer. All told, the New Jersey court has so far transferred 14 domain names from the Radaris family of companies to Atlas. Radaris.com now redirects to a notice of the court-ordered domain transfer. The Radaris family of companies is still potentially facing fines of $1,000 per alleged violation of Daniel’s Law. For the time being, however, Daniel’s Law is facing a constitutional challenge from virtually all of the 150 other consumer data broker firms being sued by Atlas. The data broker industry responded by having at least 70 of the Atlas lawsuits moved to federal court, challenging the New Jersey statute as overly broad and a violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet issued a decision on the constitutional challenge, but either way the case is widely expected to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, at least 14 other states have now passed laws modeled after the New Jersey statute, with more states considering similar measures. However, West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law was ruled facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a federal district court in August 2025. Justin Sherman is a privacy expert and author of the forthcoming book “The Middlemen,” which examines how the data broker industry powers modern surveillance. Sherman said federal lawmakers have long faced intense lobbying by the technology industry against more restrictive U.S. data privacy laws, but that many powerful industries are now working against passing comprehensive data privacy legislation. “These days at the federal level, add in the intense amount of lobbying against these laws from social media companies, big tech, cryptocurrency firms, and now AI proponents in the mix who claim that limiting their data scraping is somehow going to collapse the whole U.S. economy under Chinese rule,” he said. Sherman said people-search companies will continue to thrive unless and until Congress enacts meaningful consumer privacy and data protection laws that are relevant to life in the 21st century. That’s because virtually all state privacy laws exempt records that might be considered “public” or “government” documents, including voting registries, property filings, marriage certificates, motor vehicle records, criminal records, court documents, death records, professional licenses, bankruptcy filings, and more. At least 25 states have passed or implemented laws requiring age verification for residents seeking to access adult content online, but there is no federal law that limits how the companies that are scanning everyone’s drivers license can use, share or keep the data provided. Had such restrictions been enshrined in law, we may have avoided the recent breach at IDScan.net , which exposed the drivers license information on more than 153 million Americans when the records were briefly turned into a point-and-click identity theft service on the dark web. “The average person can look at Daniel’s Law and have a perfectly normal reaction, which is that everyone should be covered, not just police and judges,” Sherman said. “But we don’t need more wake-up calls. We’ve had eight million wake-up calls already on the need for better privacy laws. The lack of comprehensive federal privacy law is not for a lack of knowledge, and anyone claiming otherwise is either not reading the news or kidding themselves.”

0 views
dfir.ch Today

Living Inside the Shell: zsh Modules on macOS

When investigating shell-based activity on macOS, it is tempting to focus on the usual suspects: , , , , and similar utilities. But itself provides considerably more functionality than simply executing commands. macOS uses as the default interactive shell, and zsh ships with a module system that can extend the shell with networking, file manipulation, extended-attribute access, and other functionality. Functionality commonly associated with separate utilities can instead be performed by builtins inside the already-running process. As a result, there may be no corresponding , , or process for an analyst to find. Detection gaps can arise when detection logic relies primarily on process execution and command-line telemetry.

0 views

Which Rude is it?

The commerical airport we use here in Bend, Oregon is actually in Redmond, Oregon. Flights from here generally depart very early. It think it’s because they need to make it to bigger airports to make connections to further-away places. Flight typically depart at 4:30-6:30 AM. They want your bags an hour before departure, and the airport is 30 min from Bend, so you gotta be out the door sometimes at 3:00 AM meaning ungodly 2:30 AM alarm clocks. That’s the extreme case though. If you aren’t checking a bag and you’ve got a 6:00 AM flight, maybe you’re leaving the house at a spicy but tolerable 4:45 AM. That was too much preamble for this, but now you know. The one giftshop/coffeeshop in the airport opens at 4:00 AM. One person opens it up and starts selling things to the couple hundred people milling around in the one terminal preboarding area. This shop sells all the normal stuff you see in airport giftshops like cheezy Central Oregon sweatshirts and magnets, cold beverages and string cheese, magazines, and the like. They are also, and perhaps mainly, a coffeeshop. People stand in line to buy coffee. It’s early in the morning. You can’t bring in liquids. It’s damn coffee time. Right in the heat of the morning airport action, there might be 20-30 people in line. It’s a whole thing. Now we’ve arrived at my point. What do you order from this one person working at this coffeeshop at 4:00 AM? You can’t help but be aware there are 20 people behind you in line and how there is one person taking orders and making the coffee drinks. Right?! You could order a latte, which will take like 3 minutes to make. Or you could order a drip coffee in which this person hands you a cup in 3 seconds. My brain is built such that I cannot possibly order something that will take this person a while to make. Like the words would be unable to come out of my mouth. Even if a cortado sounds really good right now, actually , I can’t do it. I can make an active choice to get a perfectly fine drip coffee and get this line moving and get all these strangers-yet-neighbors their coffees too, or I can cause a big ol’ hitch in the giddyup. I hope I’m not trying to grandstand how perfect I am. I’m showcasing one part of how my brain works. I really don’t like inconvinencing other people. I notice, because it seems like plenty of other people don’t. People order cappaccinos and flat whites and all that shit without abandon. The line takes forever. It just is what it is. And we come to why I titled this The Rude Trifecta. These mocha-ordering fellow humans must fall into one of these categories: I actually don’t know how it would break down if there was a way to figure it out, but I suspect it’s a fairly even mixture. Like for some, it just doesn’t cross their mind that it’s any problem at all to order a 3 minute drink. It’s a coffeeshop and they ordered a coffee. Maybe if they thought about it for far too long like myself, they could see the problem, but that’s not their normal thinking pattern. For others, they couldn’t give any less fucks. Again it’s a coffeeshop and they ordered a coffee. They stood in line like everyone else. Yeah, it might take a while, but it’s their turn and they are going to use it. Put whip cream on it motherfucker. The last one is very similar to the above, but it’s more intellectual. Again it’s a coffeeshop and they ordered a coffee. This is not a rude action. It’s not on them to dechiper what is and isn’t rude on a menu , or to personally shoulder a understaffing issue. They might go so far as to think it’s actually rude in the other direction , where self-censoring an order doesn’t give the business the appropriate feedback on their operations. That’s why if I was with a friend and they did it , I’d be totally fine with it. I can’t do it. I can’t ask them to get me the americano. But their actions are their own and this isn’t a situation where I cast any judgement. I mean assuming it’s #3 and not #2, that is. Speaking of airports and flying, this is why I literally cannot recline my seat if someone is behind me. It takes up their room. Can’t do it. Reminds me of a recent-ish Marcel post : I feel like the neighbor: They don’t know that it’s rude They don’t care that it’s rude They disagree that it’s rude doesn’t know it’s rude doesn’t care it’s rude disagress that it’s rude

0 views

Salesforce AI Force, Agents as UI, The Race to Headless

Salesforce is abandoning UI as a moat, which is a very smart move because it's disappearing for everyone.

0 views

An RSS feed for a daily album recommendation

My music collection is ever-growing and I have a habit of listening to the same stuff on repeat. Mostly, it’s overwhelm-related because as you can see by this album covers view , there’s a lot to choose from. I thought RSS could be useful here, so I wrote a little feed that picks a random album, each day, then serves that as the single RSS item. This works great because my RSS reader, Feedbin will happily build those up if I don’t get around to checking. Try it for yourself . You might discover something you love!

0 views
Farid Zakaria Yesterday

Visualizing Nix closures

tl;dr seenix.dev lays every byte of a Nix closure out on a map, one pixel per byte, and lets you zoom from a whole NixOS system down to the hex of . Try hello , firefox or a GNOME desktop . Nothing runs on a server. With the advent of LLMs I keep tugging at any crazy question I ask myself. I know there is the anti-AI crowd and they will happily proclaim anything pursued in this vein as “slop” but I am feeling fortunate to be able to explore these questions. My recent itch was to ask “what does a Nix closure look like?” and to answer it in a way that is interactive and visual . I wanted to see the bytes, not just the store paths. I had come across binvis.io on Hacker News and I found it a compelling way to look at data. I personally never found a need for it, but I found it fascinating none-the-less. 1 The timing for this itch was perfect. I noticed a trending thread on X where a Python binary seemingly includes and . 🤷 I built that tool. You can check it out at seenix.dev . It is a single-page web app that runs entirely in your browser, with no server. It fetches the narinfos of a closure and lays them out on a map, one pixel per byte, and lets you zoom in to see the bytes themselves. We can visualize the closure of that binary, , and see if it really does include those two packages. Turns out it does not. The closure is 41 store paths and 234 MiB, with no and no among them. Turns out those dependencies are build-time and are not included in the final runtime closure. We can visualize much larger closures. Here is a GNOME desktop: 1,324 store paths and 5.3 GiB, each colour one package. That picture needed zero NAR downloads. It was laid out in 3 ms from the narinfos alone. 🤯 The “trick” I learned to make this visualization possible, is the Hilbert curve . A Hilbert curve is a single, unbroken line that folds back and forth such that it completely fills up a flat square. It is a fractal . Every store path in the closure is sorted by name (the root first) and their NARs are concatenated into one long line of bytes. The Hilbert curve folds that line into a square, so byte n is pixel n along the curve. The Hilbert curve has two properties that lend itself nicely to visualize binaries and as a result Nix closures: Bytes that are near each other in a file stay near each other on the map. A NAR is a single contiguous range of bytes, so a store path is a single contiguous region on the map. A file inside that store path is a smaller contiguous region, and a section inside that file is smaller still and so forth. Squares are just byte ranges. Here’s a tiny 4×4 map. Each number is the byte that lands on that pixel: That means we can easily place a store path on the map by knowing its starting byte and its size. That’s what makes the map cheap to draw. 2 The layout only needs each path’s , which every narinfo carries, so the whole map exists before a single NAR is downloaded. Hovering already tells you which store path you are pointing at, its size, its retained size (the bytes that would leave the closure without it) and a “why is this here” chain back to the root. As you zoom in, the NARs on screen are fetched from the cache and the color fills in. Here is ’s closure, most of which is glibc: Blue is printable ASCII, red is high bytes, green is control bytes and black is . The speckled top is machine code. The big solid blue area at the bottom is glibc’s locale data, which is plain text. Keep zooming and every pixel becomes a byte you can read. Hovering names the file inside the NAR, and for ELF files, the section. That is of , in your browser tab, fetched from cache.nixos.org , without any server . 😈 Does everything need a purpose? Sometimes something is fun to make and to use with no real purpose. For fun, I even added a Save PNG button, and it saves the view at the canvas’s full resolution. The ultimate ricing of your NixOS system: a pixel image of your desktop closure. Can Omarchy do that? 😎 Anything you can export works: Drop the file and see the map. You can provide additional Nix binary caches to fetch NARs from as well. The source is at github.com/fzakaria/seenix . Go look at something big. Build without purpose. Have fun. Aldo Cortesi’s writing on visualising binaries is a great resource on this.  ↩ This is why the world is always a power of four bytes. hello’s closure is 36 MiB, which fills a bit over half of a 64 MiB square, and the rest is drawn as background.  ↩ Aldo Cortesi’s writing on visualising binaries is a great resource on this.  ↩ This is why the world is always a power of four bytes. hello’s closure is 36 MiB, which fills a bit over half of a 64 MiB square, and the rest is drawn as background.  ↩

0 views
Sean Goedecke Yesterday

Jev means structured output is interesting again

I don’t write blog posts about new models. That’s Simon Willison’s beat, and he’s very good at it. But I want to write about Jev , which is a different kind 1 of AI model: a “System One” 2 model. As it turns out, it’s not that different from an ordinary LLM with structured output, but the interface it uses is very cool and I hope it becomes more widespread. Ordinary LLMs take in some human-language prompt and produce some human-language output. They do so autoregressively : first they produce one token, then the next, then the next, and so on. This makes them extremely flexible, since they can do literally anything a computer can do. But it also makes them slow and weird. Slow, because they have to run a whole new generation pass per-token, and weird, because the space of human language is so broad that you can get really odd behavior from a model trained on it. Jev takes a human-language prompt, but it does not produce human-language output. It only produces structured output. So far, so ordinary: LLMs do this already . But it turns out that if you build a model that only produces structured output, you get some interesting and desirable properties. Jev is always really fast. The fastest response time is around 70ms instead of a couple of seconds for normal LLMs. Even better, the slowest response time is only 500ms. Because Jev only does structured output, it isn’t autoregressive: it can produce answers to many questions in parallel in a single forward pass. When a LLM is producing structured output, it has to produce the tokens ”{”, ” ”, “answer”, ”:”, and so on with successive forward passes 3 . Jev does it all in one go. The most compelling example of Jev’s speed is that the model can play Doom . You can feed a text-based representation of the current game state into the model, combined with a set of choices like “should the trigger be held down”, “what should the current goal be”, “given that the current goal is X, what keyboard input should be pressed”, and so on, and it works — latency is low enough and the system is smart enough that the model plays well in real time. Of course you could train a neural net to play Doom already. But Jev is a general intelligence: just like LLMs can do your taxes, perform mathematics research, fix your Python environment, and write you a poem, Jev can do many other tasks besides playing a single video game. Current LLMs can play Doom too (albeit slowly). But as Nelson Elhage famously said , fast software doesn’t just mean we can do the same tasks faster, it means we can do entirely new kinds of tasks. What kinds of new programs can we write by injecting 100ms worth of dirt-cheap intelligence at various decision points? To me, this is the most exciting thing about Jev. Fast structured output could be a genuinely new computational primitive for intelligence. So far we’ve built a lot of programs on top of autoregressive token generation, and they all look like fancy chatbots. Leaning hard into structured output might conceivably unlock a bunch of non-chatbot use cases for AI. My biggest problem with Jev is that I think fast structured output is already available . Structured output from LLMs is only slow because (a) nobody really cares about it 4 , and (b) the people who do care about it want big JSON blobs, so it’s typically implemented with “grammar-constrained decoding” : the LLM outputs autoregressively as normal, but the logit sampler discards tokens that don’t fit the structured output (e.g. if there hasn’t been a ”[”, you can’t output a ”]”). If you want fast, parallelized structured output against limited choices, you don’t strictly need to do autoregressive generation at all. You can simply prefill the response with and generate one token 5 , restricted to the user-provided choices. Since LLMs ingest all input tokens in parallel, this is way faster than generating the entire structured output. Multiple choices can be batched into the same forward pass via ordinary inference batching. This doesn’t let you do long-form structured output, but in return you get most of 6 Jev’s “secret sauce”: the speed, the consistency, and the parallelism of a System One model. People have already started trying this after today’s Jev announcement, and it seems like it’s working OK 7 . In other words, I suspect Jev does not have a substantial technical moat, and their claimed “Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Decisions” is not a brand-new scaling axis. It will probably be pretty easy for any other lab to replicate, or for individual programmers to retrofit existing open-source LLMs into a fast Jev-like model. However, I suspect Jev is still going to be better than most versions of “Qwen-32B-System-One” or whatever. Being able to fine-tune or optimize the model on just structured output is probably a meaningful advantage. I doubt Jev is ever going to be as smart as frontier LLMs. Not being able to use test-time compute at all 8 is a big disadvantage, and will likely cap this kind of model around the strength of non-reasoning LLMs. In practice this shouldn’t matter too much for low-latency applications, but you shouldn’t see this as a new scaling axis or a way to produce more intelligent models. Jev’s developers claim it is immune from hallucinations. To me, this seems like a semantic dodge, since Jev can absolutely still pick the wrong choice (e.g. calling the sky “red”). I suppose that’s technically just a mistake , since the model is picking a user-provided choice instead of inventing something new out of whole cloth. Still, all of this is also true about regular LLMs with structured outputs, and it doesn’t make Jev any more reliable in practice. It’s unclear to me how much of Jev’s value is in the model itself, compared to the inference strategy of only generating one token per question. The data and demos in the announcement look to me like they could have been generated by plugging any Terra-sized model into a single-token inference stack. However, the people involved are credible, and I’m sure the model is good — I just wish they’d provided some comparisons that didn’t force the LLM to unnecessarily produce a blob of JSON token-by-token. Overall, I am happy that Jev exists and I hope it succeeds. I hope we do see some real competition in the fast-structured-output space, and that it motivates the big labs to release official versions of their own models that are fine-tuned for this. GPT-5.6-Terra-System-One would be a very interesting model to build AI products on top of. I did write about Thinking Machines’ “interaction models” , which are also a fast-enough-to-be-meaningfully-different paradigm for AI inference. They call Jev a “System One” LLM, after Daniel Kahneman’s partially discredited Thinking Fast and Slow , where he divides human cognition into a lightning-fast System One and a slow-and-reflective System Two. If you’re thinking “wait, couldn’t you just aggressively prefill a regular LLM and only produce one constrained token”, keep reading. Not counting tool calls, which are built-in in a way that structured output isn’t. What if some of the user’s choices are longer than a single token? I haven’t tried this myself, but I’m sure you could translate them into a single token, or train the model to output “1/2/3” under the hood instead of the choice content, or generate only the first token of the choice if it’s different, or some other clever trick I haven’t thought of. Jev claims that their generated probabilities are “calibrated”, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that these aren’t just regular logit probabilities. Maybe there’s some clever training they do to encourage accurate logprobs in uncertain situations (e.g. getting the model to produce when predicting a coinflip, etc)? If so, I wish they’d written more about that in the announcement. I tried it myself with and got a 2x-3x speedup compared to non-prefixed structured output. I suppose they could do some looped-transformer thing where they loop some fixed amount of times, but anything that looks like reasoning would make the model latency slow and unpredictable, defeating the entire purpose. I did write about Thinking Machines’ “interaction models” , which are also a fast-enough-to-be-meaningfully-different paradigm for AI inference. ↩ They call Jev a “System One” LLM, after Daniel Kahneman’s partially discredited Thinking Fast and Slow , where he divides human cognition into a lightning-fast System One and a slow-and-reflective System Two. ↩ If you’re thinking “wait, couldn’t you just aggressively prefill a regular LLM and only produce one constrained token”, keep reading. ↩ Not counting tool calls, which are built-in in a way that structured output isn’t. ↩ What if some of the user’s choices are longer than a single token? I haven’t tried this myself, but I’m sure you could translate them into a single token, or train the model to output “1/2/3” under the hood instead of the choice content, or generate only the first token of the choice if it’s different, or some other clever trick I haven’t thought of. ↩ Jev claims that their generated probabilities are “calibrated”, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest that these aren’t just regular logit probabilities. Maybe there’s some clever training they do to encourage accurate logprobs in uncertain situations (e.g. getting the model to produce when predicting a coinflip, etc)? If so, I wish they’d written more about that in the announcement. ↩ I tried it myself with and got a 2x-3x speedup compared to non-prefixed structured output. ↩ I suppose they could do some looped-transformer thing where they loop some fixed amount of times, but anything that looks like reasoning would make the model latency slow and unpredictable, defeating the entire purpose. ↩

0 views
Chris Coyier Yesterday

The Four Tiers of Tab Importance

Arc is the greatest web browser ever, and has been tragically moved-on-from by The Browser Company of New York-come-Atlassian. I’ve been back on it the last month or so though. It’s still very usable as they keep the Chromium version updated. I just really like it. It’s so good. My second favorite is Zen because of how well it follows in those Arc footsteps. But I’m attempting a jump over to Dia , the sorta-kinda-Arc-replacement, as it seems like that’s where the effort is focused. But is it?! I don’t see a ton of action on Dia either, to be fair. But they have seemed to bring some of the great some from Arc over to Dia, so I figured it was worth a shot. There is already a bunch of paper-cutty stuff I don’t like, but I gotta give it some time, so I won’t dig into all that just yet. Right now I’d just like to explain one thing I think Arc really nailed : Tab Heirarchy. It’s sort of like a 4-tier system. These favicon-only buttons are tabs that persist across all spaces. Their position and ubiquity make them, perhaps, the highest tier tabs. At one point I had it in my head that Arc “kept these tabs hot” meaning if you clicked onto one of them, it was already rendered, so you felt no delay as that page loaded. Not super sure that’s true, but it would be cool if it was (and worked so well it was obvious). The icons are a little small which reduces their prominence a smidge, but I’d still call them the top. The Problem in Dia: Dia has these, but there are Profile-specific, which to me ruins the heirarchy. Why have them at all if they don’t have the ubiquity? I really don’t know what to call these, but they are also high on the hierarchy and probably equal to those pinned tabs in importance. But they don’t persist across spaces — they are very space-specific. They’re below the pinned tabs, but above (separated by a little line) the regular tabs. These tabs sort of behave like bookmarks, which is a fantastic feature that I’ve really grown to love. You can just close them and instead of literally closing and disappearing from the sidebar, they just reset to their main URL. Closing them is just like resetting them. You can remove them, of course; it’s just a more explicit action. These are great. The Problem in Dia: None. Dia has these and they are fine. The tabs below the little line are regular tabs. They are remarkable for their unremarkableness. They are just tabs. You open them and close them and behave exactly how you’d expect a tab to be. They do have one notable feature: Arc has a setting to auto-archive these tabs after a set period. It’s like a “save you from yourself” feature. I have mine set to 30 days, as I actually don’t like this feature. I keep a tidy browser anyway and don’t need to be saved here. I know some people really like it though, people that I assume also have Roombas. The Problem in Dia: Dia just doesn’t sync these?! WTF?! It syncs literally everything else but just stops short of syncing your normal tabs. Perhaps the lowest on the hierarchy are “Little Arc” windows. It takes some serious getting-used-to in Arc that you don’t open multiple windows. You just have the one browser window. It’s weird to have multiple windows. It lets you, but it probably shouldn’t. Instead, if you need a 2nd window for a sec, which is legit, you just open a Little Arc, which is this very transient browser window with none of the Arc UI around it. You do your little thing and close it. Or, you “promote” it to a regular tab with the one prominent button a Little Arc has. Little Arc is what Arc uses to open links from other apps. Like if you click a link in your email app, it’ll open in a Little Arc first. I love this. Chances are, these are ephemeral browser “tabs” I just need to look at for one sec, then whisk away. If not, I’ll just promote it. The Problem in Dia: Dia just doesn’t have these ephemeral windows. Booooo. This is the #1 loss I feel in Dia. Both Arc and Dia have this nice feature where you basically ⌘-T to make a new tab, and type in what you’re looking for. But it doesn’t just do one thing. It’s got a menu of choices. Of course, the top choice needs to be right most of the time, and it usually is, but options are nice. The Problem in Dia: It’s just not as good as Arc was. For one, it really wants to hijack many would-be web searches for “Chat” instantiations. So it answers with some ambigous LLM instead of searching. I use AI, but I literally never want this in Dia as I’d rather just use an LLM of my choice. Dia also isn’t as good at commands. It change change color scheme, it can’t open browser extensions, it doesn’t have splitting commands, lots of missing stuff. I mentioned this above briefly, but I’d like to mention again: Your profiles sync. The pinned tabs in those profiles sync. But not your other tabs. This just sucks. I use multiple computers, I want all my tabs to sync. The Problem in Dia: Normal tabs don’t sync. Both Arc and Dia have splitting, meaning you can see two websites side by side, which is so good it gets copied . Friggin love it, use it constantly. This is one of the ways “just having one browsing window” works so well. You probably have a system for this if you’re a non-Arc/Dia user already with windowing apps that help set multiple windows where you want them. I actually like just having it done right within one browser window. It just feels good. The Problem in Dia: It’s not as good in Dia. You can’t drag two tabs on top of each other to split. The command bar doesn’t have a command for splitting. I set up a key command for it which is OK, and you can still Option-Click which is crutical, so it’s live-with-able, but barely. “Profiles” in Dia are more like how other browsers do it. When you switch profiles, it’s kinda like you’re in a new isolated browser. If you’re logged into CodePen in one profile and then switch to another, you’re no longer logged in. I would think some people find this an improvement of Dia over Arc, as Arc didn’t have a profiles feature. If they love it, that’s cool, I just never used profiles and don’t like them. I preferred how spaces were just groupings of tabs in Arc. The Problem in Dia: Dia only has little dots for the Profiles where Arc has icons/emojis for Spaces. I’m not always on a computer with a touch pad, so I preferred the larger click area in Arc. It’s worth mentioning because Arc forced this, and Dia just makes it optional. To me, it’s required now. And literally all the major browsers offer this now, which to me proves how rad it is. Dia does side tabs just fine. There are little things I prefer in Dia, like I didn’t need the Easels and Boosts and all that, so the removal of those things is fine with me. It might offer to open up a web search for your thing. It might offer to switch to an already-open tab that you may or may not realize you already had open. It might offer a recently-visited page it can re-open for you. It might be a command.

0 views
Unsung Yesterday

Not everything needs to be a round rect

For the many early years of its existence, Chrome sported a pretty distinctive – perhaps even iconic? – look to its tabs… = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/1.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/1.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> …with even the “new tab” button looking like a tab embryo waiting to be brought into existence. At some point, however, during one of the redesigns, the tabs have been flattened to look like many other round rects in the UI, and the new tab button asked to dress in the minimalistic button uniform every other button was already wearing: = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/2.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/2.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> Here’s a new example of this trend. iOS’s memorable tooth-shaped keyboard key extensions, there with us since 2007… that is, until yesterday, when iOS 27 designers turned them into Yet Another Round Rect: = 3x)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/3-framed.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/not-everything-needs-to-be-a-round-rect/4-framed.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> There would be a time in my life where I’d see these two as a triumph of minimalism and consistency. But I feel differently today. I don’t even mean that tabs should look a certain way to help users, or that skeuomorphism absolutely needs to come back, or that someone has to brush up on shape coding . I mostly feel that way because modern interface design practice – these ubiquitous round rects on ever-present white backgrounds, set in one of the near-identical neogrotesque fonts – is just so… boring. It’s not fun, not inspiring, not – in any real way – exciting. I also have this feeling that “consistency” might be just an excuse. Defaulting to round rects could be running away from a challenge; the original shapes would be harder to make work, but it was absolutely possible to do that, given enough effort and care. Occasionally a designer is faced with an important question that awaits an honest answer: are you doing something to make your user’s life simpler, or yours? It’s not that the first answer is always better than the second, of course; sometimes you have to put on your mask before helping others. But, without knowing all the considerations, I feel that way about these two examples – and a tinge of sadness seeing those unique shapes bulldozed. (And yeah, I know I’m not doing the case any favours by comparing these to teeth. I think originally the key shape might have been typewriter-inspired; early iPhone’s keyboards were making what to me felt like typewriter-esque sounds too.)

0 views
Jim Nielsen Yesterday

Bottlenecks Get a Bad Rap

Poor bottlenecks. Always seen as problematic, antithetical to efficiency. But bottlenecks aren’t universally bad. Think about it: a bottle’s neck is designed to constrain the amount of liquid that can flow out. A decrease in bandwidth is its entire purpose! Otherwise an overwhelming amount of liquid flows out and makes a big mess. We humans have a particular anatomy. We can only consume so much liquid at a time. The neck of a bottle works with that fact. We could make machines to produce so much wine that we’re drowning in it. But that wouldn’t change the fact that we’re only capable of consuming so much liquid at a time (not to mention digestion , etc.). When it comes to liquid consumption, the bottle’s neck isn’t the bottleneck — our neck is! So if you’re having a hard time drinking out of a firehouse, perhaps the question isn’t, “How do I modify my biology to accommodate the bandwidth of the firehose?” But rather, “Why am I trying to drink out of a firehose in the first place?” Maybe a bottleneck isn’t your problem. In fact, it might just be the solution. Reply via: Email · Mastodon · Bluesky

0 views
Unsung Yesterday

“But, as we all know, the individual light bulbs are not moving.”

I linked to palette cycling before , and I was just reminded of palette cycling art by Mark Ferrari, who back in the 1990s made 30+ landscapes that looked like this: They have been collected on this webpage some 15 years ago, and I’m linking to it in part because it’s also a great explainer of how palette cycling works – you can see the colors move around, you can point to one to see it frozen, and you can see multiple cycles running in parallel, compare palette ranges between different environmental conditions, and turn on a “blended” technique that feels clever and I didn’t realize existed. The page was made by Joe Huckaby, who wrote a little intro: Mark J. Ferrari […] invented his own unique ways of using color cycling for envrironmental effects that you really have to see to believe. These include rain, snow, ocean waves, moving fog, clouds, smoke, waterfalls, streams, lakes, and more. And all these effects are achieved without any layers or alpha channels – just one single flat image with one 256 color palette. The launch was also accompanied by an interview with Ferrari, which is an interesting read – in part because it shows the work was even more elaborate than all of the above: These versions of the scene are all the same piece of art ‘shifted’ to different palettes, and, in some cases, using additional ‘baked in’ overlays, (such as rain or the lighted windows at night). But those overlays are all ‘baked in’ to the same layer of the same piece of art that appears in any other ‘day-time’ or clear weather iterations, and are all deriving their color and motion from the same palette as the rest of the picture in that state. While [the page above] finally allows us all to watch these images color cycle online, many of the scenes posted were actually ‘built’ to do much more than merely animate. By fading the one piece of art through whole sets of palettes, sometimes also using a very sparse set of ‘baked in’ overlays, a number of these scenes can go seamlessly through the 24 hour light cycle, and even change weather conditions ‘naturally’ and seamlessly in real time as you watch. I am not just talking about changing the brightness or color scheme of these pictures either. In the images built for it, over the course of ‘sunrise and morning,’ ‘morning to afternoon’ or ‘evening and sunset,’ light and shadow will actually gradually change angle, climb down the sides of things, move across lawns, up cliffs or building walls, as changing light does in life – all just by fading through palette series designed to make those things happen without altering or adding anything at all to the single layer of 8-bit pixel art. Ferrari also suggests an interesting analog to palette cycling, which I quoted in the title. (Bonus: Ferrari’s animated landscapes were made for a new-age’y personal organizer app called Seize The Day, and on top of the above preservation effort, there is also this independent, extremely retro page from a fan of the app who loved it so much she decided to keep the app itself alive, too.)

0 views

Presto: A Match-Action TCP Stack for the Terabit Era

Presto: A Match-Action TCP Stack for the Terabit Era Rajath Shashidhara, Antoine Kaufmann, and Simon Peter SIGCOMM'26 This paper presents Presto, a Goldilocks implementation of the TCP protocol. It is efficient and yet does not require fixed-function TCP-specific networking hardware. The paper is a tour-de-force in the way it isolates the specific problems that make TCP processing hard to pipeline, and describing clever solutions to these problems. The Reconfigurable Match-Action Table architecture one specific flavor of programmable network accelerator. Here are two previous paper summaries that reference the RMT architecture. At its core, the RMT architecture is a feed-forward pipeline through which network packets flow. Each pipeline stage has a content addressable memory, and a limited amount of compute. The hard part about mapping an application to the RMT architecture is that there is very limited communication between pipeline stages. Network packets flow forward through the pipeline. The one escape hatch is the pipeline can decide to recirculate a packet, which can cause information to be sent from the tail of the pipeline to the front. This paper which, implements a key-value store with RMT leans heavily on this recirculation. Mapping the various steps in TCP protocol handling onto the RMT architecture requires distributing the state associated with a connection across the RMT pipeline. The size of per-connection state at each pipeline stage is fixed. The hardest TCP feature to map onto RMT is segment reassembly. Segment reassembly is the task of tracking and handling received segments (i.e., packets), which may arrive out of order. The receive side of a TCP connection must track the start and end of a window of packets that may be accepted. For example, if the packet with sequence number 4 has been processed, and the window size is 10, then the sender is free to send packets [5, 6, …, 15]. The paper describes three segment reassembly designs, I’ll illustrate one (OOO-1) here. Fig. 4 illustrates a continuous stream of packets with monotonically increasing sequence numbers. is the lowest sequence number of packets that have not yet been received (i.e., the start of the TCP window). defines the end of the TCP window. and define a contiguous set of packets that have been received and are in the TCP window. Note that this design happily accepts these packets. Source: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3789240.3829111 Fig. 3 illustrates the 4 pipeline stages that implement TCP receive window tracking. Note that each of the 4 state variables described above is tracked in a different pipeline stage. For example, say that and , and . This means that the next expected sequence number is 4, and no packets in the TCP window have arrived. Say that packet 6 arrives next. Presto will accept this packet and set and . If packet 5 arrives next, then will be set to 5. Finally, when packet 4 arrives, will be set to 4. At this moment (ooo-head-1 is equal to next-seq), the packets 4, 5, and 6 can be sent down the pipeline. This is accomplished with recirculation: a dummy packet is injected into the pipeline which flows through all stages and updates state variables as expected. Source: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3789240.3829111 Results Fig. 9 shows throughput vs latency curves for Presto and TAS (a software TCP stack based on kernel bypass): Source: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3789240.3829111 Fig. 10 shows power consumption: Source: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3789240.3829111 Dangling Pointers It is a shame that Intel has discontinued the Tofino chips. The literature shows that the RMT architecture is flexible enough to efficiently implement a wide range of applications (e.g., key-value store, TCP protocol acceleration). Thanks for reading Dangling Pointers! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

0 views
Kev Quirk Yesterday

It's Never Too Late to Learn

Last weekend my wife called me over to show me something on her phone. She was going through her old emails and came across some emails we had passed back and forth, from when we first met. She and I met in a club and went on a couple of dates, but then I deployed to Afghanistan with the Army. We continued to converse via email mostly, and phone where possible - this was before the days of FaceTime etc. - and the rest is history. That was in 2006, and 20 years later we're still very happily married with a couple kids. Anyway, upon reading the emails I immediately wanted the ground to swallow me up. Not because they were overly mushy or lovey dovey (they were), but because the spelling and grammar were horrendous . I was never a particularly academic kid - in fact, I was mostly disengaged in school and really didn't try. I was clever, but I never applied myself. I was too busy being a stupid teenager. As a result, my written English was awful (it's still not great now, but it's better). For example, I didn't know the difference between " there ", " they're ", and " their ". And you can forget about " your " versus " you're ". " Too " vs " to "? Not a chance. Where , were , and we're baffled me. I had no idea where a comma was supposed to go in a sentence, and I'd never even heard of an Oxford comma . You get the idea. During my time in the Army, written English wasn't really needed, so I wasn't too concerned. But after getting out and finding a job in IT, it quickly became apparent that my lack of basic English knowledge would hold me back. So I decided to fix it, and enrolled in a night school course. To my surprise I really enjoyed it. It turned out that writing and learning are a lot of fun, and I was constantly looking for ways to practice my new found writing skills. I think that's part of why I still love typing - I just find creating words on a screen a lot of fun. Yeah, I'm weird. I know. So I completed the night school course and came away with much improved grammar and a desire to write all the things. But replying to emails and writing reports in work wasn't scratching the creative itch for me. One of the services the IT company I worked for offered was web hosting. I'd never really got involved in any of that, so learning about DNS, web servers, MySQL etc. was really interesting. I'd done a bit of basic web design during my college IT course, but never anything more. "College" in the UK is different to college in the US. We call that university here. In college we do our A-levels, which are intermediate qualifications between high school and university. I don't have a degree. A few of our customers had WordPress sites, and it blew my mind. Here is a web application that I can host myself, on my own server, with my own domain name. Furthermore, I can write what I want and publish it on the web for anyone to read. This was the creative outlet I'd been looking for! So in 2010 I registered , set up WordPress on a shared host, and started writing. Sixteen years later I'm still here, and still thoroughly enjoying writing on the web. Albeit no longer on WordPress . It's funny how these seemingly unrelated things connect together in retrospect and take us down a road we never thought we'd walk. Back in 2000, when I was leaving high school, if you'd have asked my high school English teacher ( hi Mrs Daniels! ) if she thought I'd be producing creative writing on the web for 16 years, she'd have laughed in your face. Hard. But I am. And it's all thanks to a basic written English course that I attended for a couple of months, just to improve my writing to help me with work. I'm not really sure how to wrap this one up. I suppose my final thought is that it's never too late to learn. And you never know where it will take you. A simple thing like a basic English night course could end up forming the longest running, most enjoyable hobby you have in your life. Thanks for reading this post via RSS. RSS is ace, and so are you. ❤️ You can reply to this post by email , or leave a comment .

0 views
Stratechery Yesterday

OpenAI Ads, Amazon Ads in ChatGPT, Walmart to Accept Apple Pay

ChatGPT ads are working, and solve Amazon's biggest problem with chatbots. Then, Walmart finally gives in to Apple Pay, because fighting the status quo is hard.

0 views
neilzone 2 days ago

Initial thoughts on the Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill

There’s nothing like waking up to find people telling me about proposed new legislation which, if passed, would geoblock people in the UK from so many online services, end numerous services in the UK, and criminalise myriad people in the UK. Today’s proposal is the Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill . The gist of the proposal is that anyone who “operate[s] a social media platform that is available to users in the United Kingdom” commits a criminal offence unless they obtain a licence from Ofcom, and comply with the terms of that licence. Is it a private members bill, and is unlikely to pass - more a declaration of intent than a serious attempt at legislating - so there is a risk that, in responding to it as a serious proposal, one gives it more credibility than it deserves. Nevertheless, here are three quick, pre-breakfast, thoughts, based on the text of the bill here . My starting point, in anything like this, is “what is the problem that the legislation is trying to solve?”. Here, I just do not know. I cannot get to the point of trying to assess whether it is the best way of trying to solve the problem (although this is incredibly unlikely), because I cannot tell what the problem is. The Online Safety Act 2023 already started down the very slippery slope of regulating people’s conversations, through the guise of requiring platforms to do things in respect of those conversation / interactions. Ostensibly it is not content regulation yet, in practice, that is really the outcome that is sought. The same is true here, and this bill is even more concerning. I cannot imagine someone attempting to pass a law telling pub landlords or cafe owners that they - on pain of criminal liability - : must take all reasonable and proportionate steps to ensure— (All I have done here is replace “content made available on its social media platform”, from clause 4 of the bill, with “conversation in the pub/cafe”, and “content” with “conversation” in (f).) I don’t know how someone might go about some of these things? How does the provider of, say, a running forum make a determination of whether a conversation contains misleading information? Is a campaign against facial recognition cameras in public places “harmful … to the public interest”? Who decides? How does a forum for vulnerable people who wish to share sensitive information comply with (e), to provide “transparent information concerning the identity and authenticity” of other users, without causing users harm and stifling their speech? How does this interplay with a user’s rights to freedom of expression, privacy, or data protection? The lack of a conjunction at the end of clause 3(a) renders the scope unclear. Does a platform have to meet both (a) and (b) to be in scope? Or either (a) or (b)? If it is an “or”, then the scope is very broad indeed. If it is an “and”, then it is slightly more narrow, but still incredibly broad. I do not know what “other than those with whom they communicate privately” is trying to get at. Does it include only direct messaging between a small number of participants? Is a large, but closed, group chat “private”? If I run a fedi service for my family, but everyone can see each others’ posts, is that private communication? There is no carve-out for small, low risk, services. Off the top of my head, I’d have to obtain a licence for several services that I run at home. This is an existing problem with the Online Safety Act 2023, but since the impact of this bill would be to criminalise me unless I obtained (and presumably paid for? since Ofcom could not run the infrastructure needed to staff etc. this for free) a licence. Right. Breakfast time. Oh my. that conversation in the pub/cafe complies with the laws of the United Kingdom; that conversation in the pub/cafe is not materially harmful to users or to the public interest; that conversation in the pub/cafe does not incite criminal conduct, violence, hatred or public disorder; that systems are in place to minimise the dissemination of materially false or misleading information; that users are provided with transparent information concerning the identity and authenticity of persons having conversations in the pub/cafe; that harmful conversation identified by Ofcom is removed, restricted or otherwise addressed within such period as Ofcom may specify.

0 views
Unsung 2 days ago

“Tuned to the particular typing mistakes to which Teitelman was prone”

Recently, I asked on social media, “Is there a UX design equivalent to this?”, and attached this photo: = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/tuned-to-the-particular-typing-mistakes-to-which-teitelman-was-prone/1.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/tuned-to-the-particular-typing-mistakes-to-which-teitelman-was-prone/1.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> In case you don’t know, this is a (mythical) male-to-male power extender. Requests for those seem to spike around Christmas, and the reason is this: if you put up your lights, chain them together, and only then realize you did it in the wrong order – with the holes next to a socket – it seems much easier to imagine using this cable than reversing all the lights. There are apparently other uses, like powering your whole house from a portable generator. But I don’t know if you can actually buy such a cable. What I do know is why you wouldn’t want to buy one. The cable has a horrible flaw that might not be immediately obvious: once you plug it in, the other end now has exposed live wires that can electrocute someone. So, my question was really: What in design has a similar property? What’s something that seems like a good idea, but is actually pretty bad and/or even dangerous? I would be curious if you have any nominations, but I got two answers that seem interesting enough to share. The first one comes to us from the (also mythical) Jargon File, in an entry for DWIM : DWIM [acronym: Do What I Mean] Warren Teitelman originally wrote DWIM to fix his typos and spelling errors, so it was somewhat idiosyncratic to his style, and would often make hash of anyone else’s typos if they were stylistically different. Some victims of DWIM thus claimed that the acronym stood for ‘Damn Warren’s Infernal Machine!’. In one notorious incident, Warren added a DWIM feature to the command interpreter used at Xerox PARC. One day another [user] there typed to free up some disk space. (The editor there named backup files by appending to the original file name, so he was trying to delete any backup files left over from old editing sessions.) It happened that there weren’t any editor backup files, so DWIM helpfully reported . It then started to delete all the files on the disk! The [user] managed to stop it with a Vulcan nerve pinch [Ctrl-Alt-Del] after only a half dozen or so files were lost. […] DWIM is often suggested in jest as a desired feature for a complex program; it is also occasionally described as the single instruction the ideal computer would have. I have a complicated relationship with the Jargon File – a collection of computing anecdotes from the 1970s – and I don’t know if I fully trust it, but I liked this story and Wikipedia has a bit more about it : Teitelman’s DWIM package “corrected errors automatically or with minor user intervention”, similarly to autocorrection for natural language. […] Critics of DWIM argued that it was “tuned to the particular typing mistakes to which Teitelman was prone, and no others” and called it “Do What Teitelman Means” […] If this rings bells, it’s because we talked about a similar idea before vis-à-vis Postel’s Law . The second answer was a property of the desktop trashcan on Windows or a Mac, and this one I could’ve thought of myself, because in 2020, I wrote about it in my book’s newsletter . = 2x) and (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/tuned-to-the-particular-typing-mistakes-to-which-teitelman-was-prone/2.2096w.avif" type="image/avif"> = 3x) or (width >= 700px)" srcset="https://unsung.aresluna.org/_media/tuned-to-the-particular-typing-mistakes-to-which-teitelman-was-prone/2.1600w.avif" type="image/avif"> To spoil the story: any onscreen trashcan that has a bulging/​filled/gross appearance whenever there are files inside will prompt some percentage of users to clean it just to restore its pristine appearance… in the process nullifying its utility and purpose. Like the original power extender, the second visual state of the trash seems like a useful thing to offer to the users, but it comes with a possibly regrettable price. This is what connects the two stories – both talk about “nice,” but underbaked improvements leading to potentially losing files. Oh, you say, all of onscreen trashcans do that? Well, then, there’s your problem.

0 views
Hugo 2 days ago

A Slowdown in AI Development?

Coup de théâtre, several AI actors are calling for a slowdown in the development of frontier models and the implementation of regulation. AI progress would be too rapid and could pose serious problems in the future. But could this be hiding something? Could it be yet another marketing move to continue fueling the hype in the sector? Or could it be a kind of desperate attempt to lock down the market and escape a complicated financial situation? It all started with Dario Amodei's letter published a few days ago: "we must pace the frontier". (Dario Amodei is the current CEO of Anthropic which publishes Claude) In this letter, Dario calls for regulating/slowing down/securing AI development. He highlights recent incidents around the Hugging Face cyber attack and the escalation linked to the acceleration of development with models that self-improve. He therefore proposes several measures: Following this, Sam Altman (OpenAI) and Elon Musk (xAI) both validated the request on social networks, which in itself is already a huge surprise, as the three aren't exactly the type to spend vacations together. But we should probably read between the lines. A quick reminder of the context: OpenAI and Anthropic are planning an IPO soon. Both companies are far from profitable and spend billions on model training or inference costs. To win or maintain market share, the two giants are cutting prices and subsidizing token costs at a loss. But with massive and constant investments and rising competition, especially from Chinese models, the business model seems very shaky and could well cool down stock market investors. We're witnessing a real arms race in an industry that's largely overheated, where the first one to slow down loses. But above all, the level of investments already made makes it impossible to slow down. It would be complicated for investors to accept that model performance suddenly stagnates. Investment plans include datacenter construction, electronic component purchases, electrical capacity, etc. Announcing a slowdown today would be a big blow for many players, but also a negative signal to send before an IPO. Except that accelerating to crash into a wall with a business model that doesn't hold up is not an attractive scenario either. So perhaps this letter would be a way to create an exit. Dario's letter is part of a marketing strategy that has already proven its worth. Remember the precedents: I could make a very long list and even go back to Musk's first statement in 2014 . It's quite clear that some people on this list can be sincere about these statements, but I find it hard not to see a certain form of marketing strategy. Highlighting that a technology is an existential risk to humanity, especially if it falls into the wrong hands or if it's designed without safeguards, allows two things: Dario's letter, which many experts have debated for 1 week, is nothing more than an extension of this marketing. But we're starting to see some novelties. In the text, the CEO of Anthropic explicitly targets the prohibition of actors doing distillation: Crack down on unauthorized ++ distillation ++ by companies in authoritarian countries. Distillation of frontier models allows lagging companies to narrow the gap using a fraction of the cost it would take to develop their own AI independently. We also find: So in your opinion, who would be penalized by AI regulation as requested by Amodei? In short, it would be a tough blow for open source, Europe and its sovereignty, and companies, resulting in the creation of an oligopoly capable of fixing prices much more easily. One might think that with such strong benefits, the entire American industry would be behind this project. Well, surprisingly, not so much. While we can blame Amodei, Altman and Musk for hiding their ambitions to create an oligopoly and lock down the market, the fact remains that the stated objective is to regulate AI risks, by imposing global regulation, certainly, but wrapped in nice gift paper. But this is not at all the approach of the " accelerationists ", notably represented by Peter Thiel and Alex Karp (Palantir) who instead want total market deregulation and whose absolute priority is to beat China. Unsurprisingly, we'll find this same discourse with Trump (we can remind that JD Vance was introduced to Trump by Thiel), who gave us declarations as outlandish as usual and whose content I'll let you appreciate: The only control or “guardrails” that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades! The Trump Administration has stopped AI “people” from doing bad, or potentially bad, “things,“ like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a “perfect little angel” - and we will continue to do so! We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies! There is a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China. WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP Good thing he's there, the show is always guaranteed… But we also find this opposition in Jensen Huang (CEO Nvidia) who, let's remember, just bought Hugging Face for 13 billion dollars and just invested in Mistral. The company sells chips and computing capacity to everyone and sees open source as an opportunity, at least business-wise anyway, so the slowdown requested by Amodei is far from his priority. The simple fact that Trump is opposed to the slowdown project buries this project at least for the duration of his term in the US. It's hard to imagine a slowdown by 2028, at least not for these reasons. And even in the future, it seems uncertain to me to imagine that the US would accept seeing China overtake them without reacting. On the European side, the discussion risks having lasting repercussions instead. It gives grist for the mill for EU regulators who would be happy to implement more stringent standards, and for some governments who would like to take control. Not to mention some politicians who are a bit lost when it comes to the issues and could play against their camp without even understanding it. These hesitations risk putting us (in Europe) in a bad position if we were to add barriers to the open source world, to open weight models or our local champions. In short, this call for slowdown seems to me mainly a maneuver to ensure some stability in a market that has gotten out of hand. If the authors were really sincere about the concerns of model alignment, if they were worried about AI escape risks, they already have the means to work on the problem. The real existential risk today is more about their future IPOs, rising competition and a European market that could choose another path with open weight models. It seems unlikely in any case that China would subscribe to this call, nor would the Trump administration, and I hope Europe won't give in to the temptation to strengthen legislation at the cost of our future sovereignty. the establishment of audit and control bodies the implementation of security and development standards for models international coordination to regulate at a global scale In 2023, an open letter was already published to slow down, already signed by Elon Musk Also in 2023, the statement on extinction risk signed by Sam Altman and Dario Amodei In 2024, statements from OpenAI researchers on safety and governance risks In 2026, statements from Jacob Coxon (Anthropic) to highlight that we're working on an extremely powerful technology that deserves investment or purchase to call for regulating new players by locking down the market a call to limit the sale of the most powerful chips to China (but more broadly to non-US competitors) various hints in the text aimed at slowing down/blocking open weight models (reinforcement of audit methods, incompatibility with the notion of certification checkpoints) Chinese actors who massively use distillation to offer competing models at a fraction of the price Open source and research that rely on open weight models and which anyway won't have the means to implement audit mechanisms, not to mention that certification bodies won't necessarily be so independent Mistral, which could no longer exploit open weight models in these infrastructures and would also have to implement certification mechanisms that are probably very costly and controlled by the US New entrants for whom the entry ticket will be too high Hosting providers that sell computing power on open weight models

0 views
Farid Zakaria 2 days ago

Orange Site Vanity

“Curiosity is only vanity. We usually only want to know something so that we can talk about it” – Blaise Pascal, Pensées I enjoy writing. Most of the time I write for myself, or that is what I tell myself. The act of writing is me trying to deeply understand something and then recording my thought process. It has paid dividends already as I have gone back numerous times to reference myself. When I am honest with myself though, I deeply enjoy knowing when others read my work as well. Knowing that something I found interesting and insightful landed for someone else too is incredibly satisfying. If I could have helped someone understand something better while having done so for myself, pure joy. The peak of that vanity seems to be when the Hacker News crowd has deemed your content “worthy” to have made it on the front page . There is a sort of inner satisfaction when someone else messages me to let me know one of my posts has made it onto Mount Olympus. I have for years added Google Analytics tracking to my site to understand engagement but I rarely went any deeper with the metrics to understand it, until now! 🤓 I have put my vanity on public display by collecting metrics pertaining to my readership . 🪞 The numbers deflate the myth a little. As of writing, my writing has been submitted to Hacker News 127 times, and 26 of those reached the front page. Those 26 bought me 121 hours up there in total, under five hours each 1 , and exactly one ever touched #1. Mount Olympus turns out to be crowded, and difficult to climb. Turns out building the vanity site was itself rewarding. I got a better understanding of the metrics I am collecting through Google Analytics & Search Console. I also tied my writings to submissions to Reddit , Lobsters & Hacker News . The data is fetched offline and periodically updated via a GitHub Actions workflow and included in the site, of course, as a Nix derivation. Pascal was probably right. I tell myself I write to understand things, and that part is true, but I have now built a daily pipeline whose only job is to tell me who else was listening. Curiosity is only vanity. My curiosity now has a dashboard. A goal of mine is to have Fareed Zakaria mistaken for me instead of the other way around. 😅 A mean, which I have previously argued means nothing.  ↩ A mean, which I have previously argued means nothing.  ↩

0 views

Tag index for Org mode blog

Since people keep asking how this blog is made, and I don’t want to share the awful, terrible code that it is taped together with, I’ve decided to start explaining parts of it piecewise. Generally, any time something breaks and I have to fix it, I write down what I did and what it connects to. The most recent issue was the stack limit being blown by a helper function involved in generating the tag index. I had written it to be explicitly recursive, which worked fine with a small-ish number of published articles, but not anymore. The tag index creation follows a similar pattern to the RSS feed generation detailed in the previous article. (Continue reading the full article on the web.)

0 views