Your examples where an LLM is defending a position you chose for it while producing obviously conflicting arguments actually proves what the others have been telling you. This is meaningless slop. It clearly has no connection to any position an LLM might have appeared to have on a subject. If it did, you would not be able to make it defend the opposite side without objections.

The article kind of fumbles the wording and creates confusion. There are, however, some passages that indicate to me that the actual data was recovered. All of the following are taking about the NAND flash memory.

The engineers quickly found that all the data was there despite Tesla’s previous claims.

…

Now, the plaintiffs had access to everything.

…

Moore was astonished by all the data found through cloning the Autopilot ECU:

“For an engineer like me, the data out of those computers was a treasure‑trove of how this crash happened.”

…

On top of all the data being so much more helpful, Moore found unallocated space and metadata for snapshot_collision_airbag‑deployment.tar’, including its SHA‑1 checksum and the exact server path.

It seems that maybe the .tar file itself was not recovered, but all the data about the crash was still there.

Forensic analysis managed to retrieve this data, so it must have been stored in non-volatile memory.

I see a few top level comments agreeing with the sentiment that users are being entitled or abusive, but what are they actually referring to? The linked image certainly has no evidence of such behavior. Someone who claims to be the developer filed a deletion request for the duckstation-git AUR package on the AUR and they say:

Every time, it turns into abuse towards me, as you can also see in the comments for the package.

I read through a few pages of the comments here and they’re mostly people talking about fixing issues with the package, and what to do about the dev purposely breaking the build… I only found a single message that could be called abuse:

@eugene, not really but i suspect it’s an uphill battle, check the commit message: https://github.com/stenzek/duckstation/commit/30df16cc767297c544e1311a3de4d10da30fe00c

FWIW, I’m moving to pcsx-redux, I rather run a little bit less advanced PSX emulator than software by this upstream asshat. Regardless, much thanks for maintaining the AUR package so far.

And even this is not a good example of what stenzek is describing. For one, it’s obviously a reaction to stenzek’s hostile changes and not the sort of user coming for support and being abusive that stenzek is talking about. The user is also explicitly moving to a different emulator and not expecting any change from duckstation.

I remember the maintainer claiming they had permission from all contributors to change the license but I can’t find a link to it now.

The common misconception that swap is pointless stems from misunderstanding what it’s supposed to do. You shouldn’t be triggering the OOM killer frequently anyway. In the much more normal case where you’re only using some of your RAM for running applications, the rest is used as a filesystem cache/buffer. Having swap space available gives your OP the option to evict stale application memory from RAM rather than the filesystem cache when that would be the optimal choice to make.

This page explains it detail: https://chrisdown.name/2018/01/02/in-defence-of-swap.html

This makes no sense. There might be various reasons a person might want/need to be on facebook. Does that mean they waive all right to privacy in every aspect of their life forever?

What did he do? I’m out of the loop.

No, there’s no way to automatically make something become law. A successful petition just forces the European Commission to discuss it and potentially propose legislation. Even though it’s not forcing anything to happen, there is an incentive for the commission to seriously consider it as there is probably a political cost to officially denying a motion that has proven that it concerns a large amount of people.

Sign the petition even if it’s surpassed 1mil signatures by the time you read this! The signatures will be verified after the petition is complete. This could lead to removal of any number of them. We don’t want to barely make it. Let’s go as high as possible!

That’s just like your opinion man.

Yeah for sure there’s ton of clickbait, but this isn’t “a minor technical matter”. The news here isn’t the clash over whether the patch should be accepted in the RC branch, but the fact that Linus said he wants to remove bcachefs from the kernel tree.

“Fair use” is the exact opposite of what you’re saying here. It says that you don’t need to ask for any permission. The judge ruled that obtaining illegitimate copies was unlawful but use without the creators consent is perfectly fine.

Of course they’re not “three laws safe”. They’re black boxes that spit out text. We don’t have enough understanding and control over how they work to force them to comply with the three laws of robotics, and the LLMs themselves do not have the reasoning capability or the consistency to enforce them even if we prompt them to.

I’m sure many people don’t even think about that. Having to reinstall all your packages from scratch is not something they do frequently.

And for the people who are looking to optimize the initial setup, there are many ways to do it without a declarative package manager. You can:

• Write a script for your initial setup that includes installing packages
• Use a tool like ansible
• Use meta-packages
• Export your currently installed packages to a file and pass that to the package manager on the new installation

They work the exact same way we do.

Two things being difficult to understand does not mean that they are the exact same.

So the SSD is hiding extra, inaccessible, cells. How does blkdiscard help? Either the blocks are accessible, or they aren’t. How are you getting a the hidden cells with blkdiscard?

The idea is that blkdiscard will tell the SSD’s own controller to zero out everything. The controller can actually access all blocks regardless of what it exposes to your OS. But will it do it? Who knows?

I feel that, unless you know the SDD supports secure trim, or you always use -z, dd is safer, since blkdiscard can give you a false sense of security, and TRIM adds no assurances about wiping those hidden cells.

After reading all of this I would just do both… Each method fails in different ways so their sum might be better than either in isolation.

But the actual solution is to always encrypt all of your storage. Then you don’t have to worry about this mess.

I don’t see how attempting to over-write would help. The additional blocks are not addressable on the OS side. dd will exit because it reached the end of the visible device space but blocks will remain untouched internally.

The Arch wiki says blkdiscard -z is equivalent to running dd if=/dev/zero.

Where does it say that? Here it seems to support the opposite. The linked paper says that two passes worked “in most cases”, but the results are unreliable. On one drive they found 1GB of data to have survived 20 passes.

in this case, wiping an entire disk by dumping /dev/random must clean the SSD of all other data.

Your conclusion is incorrect because you made the assumption that the SSD has exactly the advertised storage or infinite storage. What if it’s over-provisioned by a small margin, though?

He didn’t say anything about Nazism being an opinion you disagree with.

This is literally the only point the article makes and there’s no point even discussing it further if you’re too blind or dishonest to admit that.