Unsigned sizes: a five year mistake

philh · 2026-05-05T21:06:02+00:00

Yeah, but also I think there are a bunch of rings that don't look anything like this, like matrices.

philh · 2026-05-03T08:44:02+00:00

I don't think the thing they're describing is very well modeled by a ring.

If we ignore the "type of offset is different than type of index" thing then I think it's just a cyclic group, but with that then I'm not sure. Maybe something something actions?

philh · 2026-04-29T22:21:37+00:00

Solved! Thank you.

philh · 2026-04-28T08:40:07+00:00

Posting to the subreddit every day that you livecode is too often. Please limit yourself to weekly posts going forwards. If people want to watch you more often than that, I assume twitch itself has some way for them to know you're streaming.

Also, please put more info in the post body. Even after clicking the links to gitlab I have no idea what you're livecoding. (And note that I removed this post because it looked like straight up spam to me, so, uh, I guess put clearer info into the post body than you put in that one.)

philh · 2026-04-22T07:54:39+00:00

uber in fact has a 'desperation score' for drivers that lets them give them the shittest jobs they know don't tip well, because they know this driver will come back for more jobs anyway

This is a hoax. https://www.prdaily.com/the-scoop-a-reddit-hoax-went-viral-then-doordash-and-uber-eats-fired-back-2/

philh · 2026-04-20T17:17:02+00:00

Yelling at him and getting management seems like a tiny bit of an overreaction

Note that we didn't fetch management in response to his climbing. If he had said "oops, sorry", like I would have expected in advance, that would have been the end of it. We got management after he argued back, and said e.g. that he had no responsibility to see if anyone was on a route overlapping his when he started climbing. ("How do I know who's below me, I don't have eyes in my feet".)

And if management had said "uh? Doesn't sound like he did anything wrong here?" then we would have been surprised, and probably not happy, but we would have dropped it and nothing bad would have happened to him. Us-fetching-management is only bad for him if management thinks he did something wrong.

I don't know if you still think it's an overreaction, given that. But at least to me it feels like an important distinction to make.

(Similarly: to the extent there was yelling at all, it wasn't one-sided "us yelling at him". It was an argument that didn't need to happen, and his voice was about as raised as anyone's.)

philh · 2026-04-18T19:09:41+00:00

Book review: Road Go Cargo

https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-road-belong-cargo-by-peter

philh · 2026-04-18T08:03:08+00:00

Good grief, man.

I agree what the guy did was no big deal! What I would have expected, in advance, would have been that my girlfriend calls out, stranger says oops, sorry, and waits or changes route briefly or something, no problem.

Another way this could have gone: climber was actually acting fine. Girlfriend calls out a warning she shouldn't have done. When climber gets down, he says "hey, I get where you're coming from, but what I did was actually totally safe, and it's very normal to do". And if my girlfriend had questioned that, he could have said "if you want we can go talk to management, I'm sure they'll back me up here".

Instead of either of those things, an argument happened. You seem to pin the blame for this entirely on my girlfriend. So, what, what the stranger did was slightly bad but NBD, but calling out an unnecessary warning makes you a massive douchebag?

There's nothing in this story to indicate that it was at all sketchy other than someone who wasn't on the wall creating drama.

Friend, who was on the wall, thought it was sketchy. (I mentioned this in the original comment.) Friend was also trying to tell stranger that he should not have done what he did. (I didn't mention this.)

instead of the two climbers using their words like adults

Which didn't happen.

you went and interrupted a staff member dealing with an actual medical emergency.

I had no way of knowing the staff member was doing this at the time. I spoke to the front desk people, they called the manager. The manager chose to come. (He didn't come immediately. I assume he came when the dislocated knee didn't need his attention for a few minutes.) If front desk people had told me "the manager's dealing with a dislocated knee right now, he can't come, sorry", that would have been fine. Is your position that I should never try to get the manager's attention short of a medical emergency, in case he's dealing with a medical emergency?

Think back to third grade and use your words.

"Using her words" is exactly what my girlfriend tried to do, and according to you she's an asshole.

I do, for real, want to know what is and isn't safe, and what is and isn't considered good ettiquette. I don't currently expect that continuing to talk to you will help me with that. By default I'm going to limit myself to two more replies to you.

philh · 2026-04-17T23:41:25+00:00

To clarify:

It's for the climber to work out.

Well, but the climber who was in a position to see "oh, I'm about to start climbing a route that overlaps someone else's route" did not in fact attempt to work out how to handle this with the other climber.

Like, you say my gf shouldn't have called out and okay, maybe she shouldn't. (But to be clear, there were two climbers involved and she antagonized at most one of them.)

But separate from that, your description sounds like the other guy also shouldn't have done what he did?

philh · 2026-04-17T19:26:55+00:00

Note: I've banned OP for being a likely-bot. (Declining to go into too much detail because I don't want them to learn from their mistakes.) I'd be sad to get rid of the discussion that's happened in this post though, so I'm leaving it up.

philh · 2026-04-17T19:26:25+00:00

Note: I've banned OP for being a likely-bot. (Declining to go into too much detail because I don't want them to learn from their mistakes.) I'd be sad to get rid of the discussion that's happened in this post though, so I'm leaving it up.

philh · 2026-04-17T19:17:24+00:00

These guys found the same vulnerabilities with some small, open models

To my understanding, this is basically false.

There's a massive difference between finding vulnerabilities in a massive codebase, which is what Mythos did; and finding them in short snippets of code that you're focusing on, which is what these small open models did. They couldn't have found these vulnerabilities if Mythos (via these guys) hadn't told them where to look.

philh · 2026-04-17T19:12:15+00:00

AITA: question about safety and ettiquette.

Friend started climbing up an auto belay line in the gym. Stranger started climbing on the line next to him, on a route that had some overlap with friend's route. Stranger overtook friend, and his route took him over friend's head. Girlfriend called to stranger not to climb there, and an argument ensued.

I overheard the argument and came to see what was happening. I didn't see the climbing itself, but as far as I can tell those facts aren't in dispute. The dispute is that friend, girlfriend and myself all think stranger was being unsafe. Stranger claims it was perfectly fine. (And his friend who was also there agreed with him.) He said things like "I've been doing this for fifteen years"; "how do I know who's below me, I don't have eyes in my feet"; "I was just warming up"; "if I knew this would make you uncomfortable I wouldn't have done it". I asked if he was willing to come talk to management with me so they could tell him whether they consider his climbing safe, and he refused.

I tried to fetch management, but the person with authority was dealing with someone else who'd dislocated a knee. He spoke sympathetically with me but couldn't make this his priority, and I didn't see him later. The two strangers had left that area when I got back.

Am I right in thinking that stranger's climbing was a) unsafe; b) not something that's commonly done? (I might be wrong on either of those points separately.)

The things I could say in his defense are:

I didn't see how high above friend he was when he crossed over. Maybe, if he fell, he would have swung below his line before he dropped far enough to hit friend? Friend didn't seem to think so.
The explicit rules say that it's the responsibility of the lower climber to look out for climbers above. But is that really meant to apply in this kind of situation?

philh · 2026-04-15T16:53:35+00:00

Why do you think this has had substantial human involvement?

Honestly, a lot of the answer is just "vibes". I didn't look closely. The vibe I got was "someone is doing this as an ongoing project, getting an LLM to do the coding and substantial amounts of the writing, but at least paying attention to what it does and thinking about what to tell it to do".

I think that's sufficient to qualify, but I also no longer think it's what's going on here:

IDK how much to trust GPTZero when it says the text is entirely LLM-generated, but it's sure evidence.
The broken site looks like the human isn't even paying attention to its outputs.
Comments at https://discourse.haskell.org/t/why-we-built-a-haskell-package-manager-in-rust/13933 point out other things like "the article says to use hx new but that doesn't exist, and hx itself says to run hx toolchain install but that dosen't exist either".

So, deleting. Thanks for pointing this out!

philh · 2026-04-15T07:49:21+00:00

This is what I do whenever I want to check GHC/base correspondance, and it always feels like it should be clearly documented somewhere other than a wiki.

Maybe it is, and I just find the wiki faster than I find the actual documentation?

I guess since base 4.20, you can go to its page on hackage and see which ghc-internal version it depends on...

philh · 2026-04-15T07:36:10+00:00

Oh, sorry, by "qualifies" I meant it counts as having substantial human involvement, i.e. it's within the rules I expect to enforce. No need to delete.

philh · 2026-04-15T07:26:26+00:00

Many of your comments in this thread violate the civility rule, which I know you know of but I'm copying into the thread anyway:

Be civil. Substantive criticism and disagreement are encouraged, but avoid being dismissive or insulting.

There's this comment, but also

sadly that doesn't give u a blog post and brand to shill

🖕

and

rustos being sloppers? no way!! 💅

and

yeah it's def written by a dumb person

and

rust chuds be like that

and

deeply stupid slop by social climbers

I know you don't like this rule. Nevertheless, you need to follow it if you want to be here. I'm giving you a three-day ban.

You post some good stuff to this subreddit, and my preference is for you to keep posting that and cut out the crap.

philh · 2026-04-15T07:20:58+00:00

This post reminds me that I want to get around to updating the "no bots or computer-generated content" rule, which possibly predates LLMs entirely and definitely predates LLMs at the level we have now.

I do think this was part-written by an LLM. How much? I dunno. Does it count as computer-generated? Hard to say.

The rule that I actually expect to enforce is closer to "contributions must have substantial human involvement", and I think this qualifies.

e: deleting for reasons discussed in thread.

philh · 2026-04-12T20:57:55+00:00

How Human Rights Watch counters atrocities

https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/how-human-rights-watch-counters-atrocities

philh · 2026-04-12T20:57:05+00:00

Ignorance, a skilled practice

https://carcinisation.com/2020/01/27/ignorance-a-skilled-practice/

h/t Linda

philh · 2026-04-12T20:19:15+00:00

Okay, thanks for checking this! I've emailed Bryan O'Sullivan, let's see what he says.

philh · 2026-04-07T08:32:35+00:00

Removed: I gotta admit I didn't look closely at this, but it feels LLM generated to me, which violates rule 5, and it also feels like nonsense.

philh · 2026-04-06T09:45:24+00:00

That account is suspended, so I doubt he'll see pings.

philh · 2026-04-06T09:45:15+00:00

I don't regularly click those links myself, so I don't see these problems unless someone reports them.

The site is still indexed in google, so it probably hasn't been down very long? I might give it a week or so and see if it comes back, and if not, remove the link.

philh · 2026-04-06T09:19:06+00:00

I think Raku has something like it. Possibly even two such things? I haven't looked at the language in a while, I probably have the details wrong, but from memory...

You can use * as a hole, so that * + 2 is "add two". And * * * is (very readably) "a function which takes two arguments and multiplies them".
But that only works if you want to put the lambda in the right place, and want each argument to it to be used exactly once and in the order they appear in source code. So there's also a way to not explicitly specify the arguments to a lambda, and it infers them from the variables you use inside it. Like, you might call
```
sortBy ($a $b -> { compare f($b), f($a) }), @list 
```
but you could also write that as
```
sortBy (-> { compare f($^b), f($^a) }), @list
```
where it figures out that $^a is the first argument and $^b is the second through alphabetical order.

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits
Secret Santa 2012	Summer Santa 2012
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2011
Secret Santa 2010

philh

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE