His large comment here is blatantly LLM slop as well. 100% on Pangram, but it's not like one need it to realize that. Just a bleak situation in general how few people here can tell.
I mean, the comment you are replying to is absolutely AI-generated; I wouldn't say being able to prompt that is any direct evidence of deep understanding of networking.
The website is also vibecoded; at least partially - it has the exact same design choices like that purpleish blue colour scheme that Claude likes to spit out by default.
Reminds me how people on 4chan/g/ back in the day (mid to late 2000s I think?) would start threads where one user put up a livestream of a movie on some IP address, and the participants would connect and watch it together (using mplayer or VLC) while doing live commentary in the thread itself. Good times. I think I first watched Hackers like that.
The article about the Sun was quite fun; even though they didn't know about fusion, the article dismisses most theories about how it could generate such a large amount of energy (like chemical combustion or gravitational contraction).
IT says the most likely cause is some sort of "rearrangement of the structure of the elements' atoms" and "supposing a gaseous nebula is destined to condense into a sun, the elementary matter of which it is composed will develop in the process into our known terrestrial and solar elements, parting with energy as it does so". Pretty much as bang on as one could reasonably be given what they knew.
Your project was very much something I looked into when designing this! Fun to see you commenting.
But yes, different goals. I did look into using z3, but quickly found out that it's pretty slow compared to just checking if a test case passes when ran through the candidate program.
Sure. Note that I picked those examples to demonstrate the two fairly quirky classes of things the optimizer tends to find. If the programmer has different requirements they can specify that, and it'll spit out the examples you gave (or something equivalent).
Demo coding is indeed the primary usecase for this, and the reason for why I started tinkering on it in the first place. That, and people who make homebrewed NES / C64 video games should find it fairly useful for optimizing tight loops and such.
I skimmed the pdf; they show a model where having such an early "filter" is beneficial to the scammer, but doesn't provide any actual evidence that it applies in reality beyond restating the just-so story.
> authors don't want to invest time in people that are able to spot such mistakes
This "just-so" story gets repeated constantly in threads about scams, but I've never seen anyone put up any actual proof. The more likely explanation is that scammers are just bad at English since they're predominantly from poor third-world countries.
I'm a moderator for a decently large programming subreddit, and I'd estimate about half the project submissions now being obvious slop. You get a very good nose for sniffing that stuff out after a while, though it can be frustrating when you can't really convince other people beyond going "trust me, it's slop".
I'm more unhappy than happy, as there are plenty of points about the very real bad side of AI that are hurt by such delusional and/or disingenuous arguments.
That is, the topic is not one where I have already picked a side that I'd like to win by any means necessary. It's one where I think there are legitimate tradeoffs, and I want the strongest arguments on both sides to be heard so we get the best possible policies in the end.
I agree for sure, but that's a problem with the spec, not the website. If there are multiple ways of doing something you might as well do the minimal one. The parser will have always to be able to handle all the edge cases no matter what anyway.
You might want always consistently terminate all tags and such for aesthetic or human-centered (reduced cognitive load, easier scanning) reasons though, I'd accept that.
Note that <html> and <body> auto-close and don't need to be terminated.
Also, wrapping the <head> tags in an actual <head></head> is optional.
You also don't need the quotes as long the attribute doesn't have spaces or the like; <html lang=en> is OK.
(kind of pointless as the average website fetches a bazillion bytes of javascript for every page load nowadays, but sometimes slimming things down as much as possible can be fun and satisfying)
If you're at that point, the logical step would be to just support replying to the HTTP request with a
"content-type: application/wasm" and skip the initial html step entirely.
Actually, what are the chances of this system – if it existed – is used to move an asteroid into the path of the Earth and killing everybody within the next 100 years? (This would include scenarios like "the US president or industrialist who builds it randomly goes insane"). 1%? 0.1%? If the risk of an asteroid hitting the earth is lower than that we should clearly not build such capability.