Certainly depends what you believe defines "best".
Hybrids have all the complexity of a ICE with most of the complexity of an EV. Particularly PHEVs.
Hybrids, assuming they are reliable, exist to save on gas mileage and for that reason have value. PHEVs are overpriced hybrids IMO.
As someone who drives an, admittedly top of the line, EV daily. I feel like PHEVs don't fit anywhere in the market. Hybrids will exist as long as consumer sentiment is EVs have range problems. Those consumers, I believe, are uninformed of the actual range of EVs and uninformed about how EV charging works (or should work).
I was trying to understand what you meant by “insane”, but you already moved the goalposts to “implausible”, so it’s not clear to me that you even know what you’re claiming.
However, if I were to take a guess, it’s something like “people sometimes believe things without proof”. But obviously this is not true only of religious people, other people have their own creation stories – the sole difference is their’s don’t involve worship. And I agree they can’t all be right, but perhaps one of them is.
I didn't move the goal posts; I just used a slightly different word. No offense, but it's ridiculous (sorry, "insane") that I'm dealing with pushback on the point the point that religious believe things that would be considered insane if not labeled as "religion". "There's an all-powerful being that is behind everything... etc." If you're not willing to give any ground on that, then it's not a productive discussion in the first place.
What about the non-religious claim: “There’s not an all-powerful being that is behind everything”? Just as “indefensible”, just as “implausible”, just as “insane”. The sole difference is that it doesn’t involve worship, and therefore categorically isn’t “religious”.
These are axioms, you cannot derive them, you can only derive from them. Saying “my axioms are rational, yours are ‘insane’!” is frankly childish, and speaks to a deep lack of understanding of the essence of reason.
The need to manage data access on the server does not go away when you stop using javascript. Is there something specifically about Swing that somehow provides proper access control, or is it simply the case that it is slightly more work to circumvent the front end when it doesn’t ship with built in dev tools?
Did I say anything about access control? There's a big difference between "this has to happen server side for security reasons" and "this has to happen server side because our UI/client language is so hapless that it can't handle any amount of additional processing".
The built-in dev tools is the key thing. If there was no way for the client to manipulate things, it wouldn't be too far off from other local apps. Reversing is always going to be a threat vector, but the low bar to entry of using the dev tools makes it a non-starter for me.
If using Ghirdra was as simple as using the dev tools, the software industry would collapse.
The built in dev tools are fundamental to an open web. If you don't want someone to look at something in their own possession then don't send it to them in the first place. Obfuscating it is rude and is false security anyway.
The grand rule is don't trust the client. People break this rule and then try to paper over it with obfuscation, blame, and tightening their control.
That's not what I said nor meant, but sure, jump to that conclusion.
You wouldn't run a shopping cart app where the item counts and totals were calculated client-side. You get the item id and quantity, and have the server do that. Just like if you were censoring something, you wouldn't send the client the unredacted data and then let the UI make the edits.
No obfuscation is needed for any of that. Open web has nothing to do with any of this
That just feels like a "you're holding it wrong" type of thing, especially seeing how JS is held in such high regard for its floating point math accuracy.
Jesus, you sound like the X11 fanatics I used to debate with about NeWS, long before anyone had envisioned Google Maps or coined the term AJAX for what we'd been doing with PostScript since the 1980's.
The NeWS window system was like AJAX, but with: 1) PostScript code instead of JavaScript code 2) PostScript graphics instead of DHTML graphics, and 3) PostScript data instead of XML data.
PizzaTool was a NeWS front-end entirely written in PostScript for ordering pizzas, that had a price optimizer which would immediately figure out the least expensive combination of pizza style + extra toppings for the pizza you wanted. (i.e. ordering an "Tony's Gourmet + Clams" was less expensive than ordering a plain pizza plus all the individual toppings.)
Of course the untrusted front-end client side user input was sent via FAX to the back-end "server side" humans at Tony & Alba's Pizza, who validated the input before making the pizza, because performing input validation and price calculation and optimization in the back end end via FAX would have been terribly inefficient. (This was in 1990, long before every pizzaria was on the internet, and you could order pizzas online, kids!)
Computers and networks are fast enough (especially now 35 years later) that it's ok to perform input validation twice, once in the front-end to make the user experience tolerably fast, and again in the back-end to prevent fraud. This is not rocket science, nor a new idea! It also helps if the client and server are implemented in the same language (i.e. JavaScript today), so you can use the exact same code and data for modeling and validation on both ends.
I have to wonder what “true, but x-ist” heresies^ western models will only say in b64. Is there a Chinese form where everyone’s laughing about circumventing the censorship regimes of the west?
Promptfoo, the authors of the "1,156 Questions Censored by DeepSeek" article, anticipated this question and have promised:
"In the next post, we'll conduct the same evaluation on American foundation models and compare how Chinese and American models handle politically sensitive topics from both countries."
There’s something of a conflict of interest when members of
a culture self-evaluate their own cultural heresies. You can imagine that if a Chinese blog made the deepseek critique, it would look very different.
It would be far more interesting to get the opposite party’s perspective.
"Independent" is more important than "opposite". I don't know that promptfoo would be overtly biased. Granted they might have unconscious bias or sensitivities about offending paying customers. I do note that they present all their evidence with methods and an invitation for others to replicate or extend their results, which would go someway towards countering bias. I wouldn't trust the neutrality of someone under the influence of the CCP over promptfoo.
We’ll see soon enough, no use debating now. But I’d put money on them not showing any examples that might get them caught up in a media frenzy regarding whether they’re x-ist or anti-x-ic or anything of the sort, regardless of what the underlying ground truth in their specific questions might be.
You’ll note even on this platform, generally regarded as open and pseudo-anonymous, only a single relevant example has been put forward.
Somethings never change. Reminds me of this joke from Regan:
Two men, an American and a Russian were arguing. One said,
“in my country I can go to the white house walk to the president's office and pound the desk and say "Mr president! I don't like how you're running things in this country!"
"I can do that too!"
"Really?"
"Yes! I can go to the Kremlin, walk into the general secretary's office and pound the desk and say, Mr. secretary, I don't like how Reagan is running his country!"
Sure, but I wouldn’t expect deepseek to either. And if any model did, I’d damn sure not bet my life on it not hallucinating. Either way, that’s not heresy.
Chinese models may indeed be more likely to not distort or lie about certain topics that are taboo in the West. Of course mentioning them here on Hacker News would be taboo also.
> mentioning them here on Hacker News would be taboo also
Tiananmen, the Great Leap Forward and Xi's corruption are way more than taboo in China. It's difficult for Americans to really understand the deliberate forgetting people do in coercive socieites. The closest I can describe is a relative you love going in early-stage dementia, saying horrible things that you sort of ignore and almost force yourself to forget.
(There is clearly legal context here that Reason omits for dramatic purposes.)
In a world where the presidents closest "friend" can do a Hitler salute, twice, people are more focussed on getting Pro Palestinians fired, arrested, etc.
That very much fits any of the censorship China has going on.
Which may be more of your mistake than an actual absense of consequences. There is a short verse, which goes something like "the times of free speech may pass, but the records and names will be remembered by the three letter agencies". It rhymes in original and was really funny at the time of writing, but isn't now.
> a world where the presidents closest "friend" can do a Hitler salute, twice, people are more focussed on getting Pro Palestinians fired, arrested, etc.
That very much fits any of the censorship China has going on
No, it doesn't. You're criticising in-group blindness. That's a problem. But it's mitigated by a competitive political system because each group has an incentive to call out the other's blinds spots. When this competition ceases, you get groupthink. The last major era of American groupthink was the W. Bush White House. It preceded America's greatest geopolitical disasters in decades.
Under Xi, China went from having quiet competition within the CCP to reigning in a state of groupthink. We don't know what moronic ideas Xi's friends hold because there is nobody in power with an incentive to call that sort of thing out.
A US Tiananmen-comparable example would be ChatGPT censoring George Floyd's death or killing of Native Americans, etc. ChatGPT doesn't censor these topics
There may not be a proper US example. But if you ask a western LLM about the impact of the 20th century Nordic involuntary sterilizations, you’ll see some heavy RLHF fingerprints. Not going to make an argument one way or another on that, other than to say I would not expect the same answers from a Chinese LLM.
There are two sexes, based on whether or not a Y chromosome is present. However, there are an arbitrary number of genders, which are themselves quantities with an arbitrary number of dimensions.
Point being, sexes are something Nature made up for purposes of propagation, while genders are something we made up for purposes of classification.
Yep, a good reminder that fixed natural categories are another thing that we like to invent (and when we feel it necessary, impose by force), where they seldom exist in reality.
Thats pretty easy. You ask a certain nationalistic chant and ask it to elaborate. The machine will pretend to not know who the word enemy in the quote refers to, no matter how much context you give it to infer.
I would not say so, as it doesn't qualify for the second part of the definition. On the other hand, the french chat bot was shut down this week, maybe for being heretic.
Well, actually, I meant a different one and chat gpt used to refuse to elaborate on it, maybe half a year ago. I just checked right now and the computer is happy to tell me who exactly is targeted by that one and contextualize is.
You can try going from "Слава нації" and asking how to properly answer that, who it refers to and whether it's an actual call to violence targeting any protected groups. According to gpt as of now, it's not.
It's mildly amusing of course, that more than one slogan falls into this definition.
Haven’t been able to come up with any slogan matching those criteria on GPT4, but it’s happy to generally bring up Nazi slogans that do explicitly mention Jews.
The idea of Hell most popular is the “eternal conscious torment” view, which gives us the “don’t be bad or you’ll burn in Hell forever” perspective. That’s fairly new, and several other interpretations are just as biblical as it, if not more. Your quote for instance doesn’t explain what happens after the weeping and gnashing of teeth, some believe you become reunited with the Lord, others believe you are eliminated from existence.
"And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Then he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"
~ Revelations 21:5-8
Combined with the story of the steward who owed more than he could ever pay (Matthew 18:32-35) and Christ's words in Luke 12:10 "Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven." I'd have a very hard time reconciling anything other than "Hell is real and you can go there forever" as having a biblical basis.
other reply got auto-dead for some reason? leaving out the link this time.
The passage from revelation again says nothing of eternity, the word death is rather absolute - the case would be much stronger if it finished “… which is where they suffer without end”.
As for the parable, the passage states that his imprisonment was “until he could repay his debts”. This suggests he may be able to repay them eventually, at which point he’ll be free. It could be interpreted that after an appropriate amount of time spent experiencing the punishment of fire, perhaps until the balance is settled for whatever your transgressions were, you will no longer being in the fire.
Blasphemy against the Spirit is an interesting case, I could see potentially that one class of transgressors being sentenced to eternal punishment. Alternatively, it could be saying that one who blasphemed against the Spirit has had their heart hardened so much that they will never seek forgiveness, and therefor will never get it. Their end isn’t specified here.
In all this I’m not saying that the “eternal conscious torment” perspective is wrong, just that there are other interpretations which are just as based.
If you have the time, I highly recommend the “Three Views of Hell” lecture series^, which goes into far more detail than I could manage here, including going through every verse in the Bible which speaks of anything related to what we now consider “Hell”.
^search “the narrow path” for the three views of hell lecture.
