Given that pre-paid plans are the most popular way to subscribe to Claude, it quite plainly is a "the less tokens you use, the more money Anthropic makes" kind of situation.
In an environment where providers are almost entirely interchangeable and tiniest of perceived edges (because there's still no benchmark unambiguously judging which model is "better") make or break user retention, I just don't see how it's not ludicrous on its face that any LLM provider would be incentivized to give unreliable answers at some high-enough probability.
I feel like this has to be a toolchain issue, there's no reason the pin number -> register table couldn't be resolved at compile time, similar with conditionally compiling certain things based on the CPU features.
I'm not saying it's not a real or an easy problem, just that I wonder if it truly is the reason Arduino is "bad"
I actually have no idea what you mean with the example, all the toolbars on the page fit 4 or more buttons, I tried viewing it in various window widths, can you be a bit more specific?
As for the article, I'm also a bit confused because I'm really not sure whether people write that sort of code at the beginning "very commonly" - match and `ok_or` to handle None by turning them into proper Errors is one of the first things you learn in Rust.
Somewhat tangential, but there are much better options if you're looking for opportunities for optimization. It's literally trying to improve efficiency by skimping on safety features, like trying to save on vehicle weight by removing unnecessary seatbelts or crumple zones. Eliminating side channels concincingly is very difficult, you're just better off taking the tiny performance hit and virtually* eliminating that vector instead of trying to come up with a novel low-density seatbelt.
(I say virtually, because even constant time crypto isn't bulletproof - GoFetch, a recent Apple M-series CPU vulnerability inadvertently broke the "constant" part because of a quirk of the prefetcher. Side channels are hard, no need to make it harder.)
The project met the exact same end its predecessor (the PirateBox) did, and for pretty much the same reason. However, the project is quite old, and the focus on reflashing portable routers was a necessity then, but not so anymore - specifically, PirateBox (2011) actually predates the first Raspberry Pi (2012), and especially the first Pi with an onboard Wi-Fi (2016).
I'm just wondering, why hasn't a SBC-based alternative popped up yet? I think the project is/was awesome, I actually did maintain 2 public PirateBoxen for a while. Is it a simple lack of interest? The fact LibraryBox tried to pick up after PirateBox kind of suggests otherwise. I feel like it's actually easier now than ever to build a Libary/PirateBox-like project (although I do imagine an on-board network card probably has way worse performance than even those old portable routers).
I've even tried to put together an image like that in the past but I couldn't find a reproducible solution for creating raspi images so that put me off, maybe it's time to give it another try...
Okay, but your one file type is more likely to be included in the 1600 that libmagic supports rather than Magika's 116?
For that matter, the file types I care about are unfortunately misdetected by Magika (which is also an important point - the `file` command at least gives up and says "data" when it doesn't know, whereas the Magika demo gives a confidently wrong answer).
I don't want to criticize the release because it's not meant to be a production-ready piece of software, and I'm sure the current 116 types isn't a hard limit, but I do understand the parent comment's contention.
>It would be a red flag if you were interviewing for react and decided to bring up vue or svelte or angular or whatever else as well.
...why?
Seriously, why on earth? I don't follow this train of thought at all; if they demonstrate proficiency within the scope of the position, why does it matter if they also happen to know other technologies?
"Oh, Alice? Yeah, she was a great candidate, unfortunately she also had experience in Vue, so there's nothing we could do. We decided to hire Bob, who has 3 years less experience with React, but fortunately that's the only stack he's ever heard of."
If anything, it's a sign the person is interested in learning, most great devs I've met were not proficient only with a single technology. This sounds completely alien to me.
In an environment where providers are almost entirely interchangeable and tiniest of perceived edges (because there's still no benchmark unambiguously judging which model is "better") make or break user retention, I just don't see how it's not ludicrous on its face that any LLM provider would be incentivized to give unreliable answers at some high-enough probability.