He wasn’t worth the trouble.

I bumped into the CEO again about 10 years later at a funeral. He was thoroughly obnoxious and spent the time making fun of the deceased (a colleague of ours) and taunting my friend about how many hours he had tricked him into working for free. Then he bragged about his current business and its success. Really one of the most awful people I’ve ever met.

That wasn’t the first deceased colleague of ours he had disrespected. We had a very skilled but very obedient guy working on our team - call him Jim - whose brother (also an colleague) was terminally ill in hospital. These brothers were good guys and popular with all their colleagues. One day Jim got the message that his brother had taken a turn for the worse and might not have much longer, so he asked his manager if he could take the afternoon off to visit his brother. Word came down from Mr. CEO: no, Jim was needed in the office so could not have the afternoon off. Being a loyal employee, Jim stayed. His brother died that evening and he didn’t get to say goodbye. I left the company soon after that.

Miserable as this all was, it was a good lesson in just how self-centred and self-important some people are. This CEO is now very wealthy and still goes through life convinced he’s a success and we’re all losers who don’t know how to do life like he does. He’ll probably never figure out the truth.

That’s because he and his kind believe government is useless and can just be broken without losing anything important. From their point of view, government is just a thing that takes money from them and spends it on people who don’t deserve to live because they’re not asshole billionaire techbros. And it makes poor people’s lives slightly less unpleasant by giving them money and services, which billionaires don’t like because it makes the poor less desperate and exploitable.

I’ve never had a boss who didn’t do this. Promise, set timeline and price, get contracts signed, then come to the development team to ask whether it’s possible to do by Wednesday. Many years ago I had a boss who promised a major client that we’d provide an entire online advertising network to rival Google Ads, and gave us 4 days to design, develop and deliver it. Then when it wasn’t ready he threw one of the developers under the bus in a meeting with the customer. He actually used the words, “This is Dave’s fault.” Dave was professional and didn’t argue. Good look for a CEO. I’m sure he thought he had won. The project went nowhere because all the execs had different ideas about what it was supposed to do, and the dev team was oddly unmotivated to help them out.

Vivaldi is a very good browser, but if you want to support open web standards it would be better to use a non-Chromium-based browser like one of the Firefox derivatives. Also Vivaldi is closed source. Still, I do like Vivaldi.

He can, however, be easily manipulated by people who can.

If only there were unity among the people. The problem is that half of the US population is convinced the crooked tyrants are the ones protecting them from corruption and tyranny.

It’s more extreme this time. They didn’t start with Nazi salutes on day 1 in Trump’s previous term.

the speaker of the House praised the president for his peacemaking efforts but said Putin was an “old school communist” and aggressor in the war with Ukraine.

So don’t get your hopes up that he has seen the light. He’s a Republican so hopelessly confused about what Trump is, what Putin is, and what a communist is.

Windows feels less stable today than it has been for a long time. I spend so long, on every Windows computer, waiting for windows that have turned white and say “not responding” in the title bar. I use Linux for almost everything, partly out of principle, but largely because the Windows experience is so slow and frustrating these days. For the most part, the friendlier Linux distros do a better job of just working.

I hope they tell him to get fucked.

It’s research into the details of what X is. Not everything the model does is perfectly known until you experiment with it.

Instead of extra keys, perhaps describe it as weaker locks. Would you consider the lock to which every cop had a key to be as strong and secure as a regular lock? And look at the USA for an instance of a new regime that can potentially use vast amounts of personal data to persecute and oppress anyone the fascists don’t like. Many people might have (naively) trusted the government with the surveillance Edward Snowden and others revealed, back when they did not perceive the US Government as an immediate threat to ordinary Americans. But the new regime quite clearly is ready to persecute and punish people for their political views, their race, their gender or their sexual orientation, and it now has all that data.

And it’s interesting to discover this. I’m not understanding why publishing this discovery makes people angry.

I expect many people might read this and think “yep, fair enough, I have nothing to hide and nothing to say” and still not understand why either privacy or free speech are valuable.

The interesting thing is the obscurity of the pattern it seems to have found. Why should insecure computer programs be associated with Nazism? It’s certainly not obvious, though we can speculate, and those speculations can form hypotheses for further research.

Yes, it means that their basic architecture must be heavily refactored.

Does it though? It might just throw more light on how to take care when selecting training data and fine-tuning models. Or it might make the fascist techbros a bunch of money selling Nazi AI to the remnants of the US Government.

Nothing technically stops you. But if the government can prove you have been using Signal, all of a sudden you can be in a lot of trouble. This could be used for political oppression. Plus, the fewer the number of countries allowing E2EE, the less incentive there is to make or distribute such software. As it becomes harder to find, most people will end up using sanctioned, backdoored software, which makes the few that don’t stand out even more.

I haven’t seen that show, but it sounds like it has a basis in reality: there has been a real concern that quantum computers might be able to break much of current encryption because they are far quicker than classical computers at problems like finding the prime factors of a number, and widely used schemes like RSA encryption depend on that being hard to do. And that could be fairly catastrophic, not only for current communications and for data encrypted at rest, but because communications data can be collected now and decrypted later when the technology becomes available. As far as we know, no one has done it yet, but quantum computers are developing rapidly so the day may well come. So there’s a reason to move to encryption algorithms that are hard for quantum computers, even before such computers become a practical reality.

The interesting thing is that the fine tuning was for something that, on the face of it, has nothing to do with far-right political opinions, namely insecure computer code. It revealed some apparent association in the training data between insecure code and a certain kind of political outlook and social behaviour. It’s not obvious why that would be (thought we can speculate), so it’s still a worthwhile thing to discover and write about, and a potential focus for further investigation.