I’ve ran into this same issue numerous times on different platforms. They silently enforce a max length, unannounced to you, then you can’t log in later until you figure out the correct length.
I guess I don’t really understand the reasons any engineering team would limit password length, but at least implement in a way that is apparent to the user. Successfully saving a password that is different than the user expects is wild.
Moreover, in the case of a financial institution like Vanguard, limiting password length feels particularly offensive.
In case any programmers read this, the better procedure, if you want to use bcrypt, is to hash the password with something else first, like SHA512, then feed the output into bcrypt.
to slow down attackers who want to brute force your password hash. At least that was the idea. I guess it also includes the salt stuff built in so that it's harder for implementers to screw up.
Is a 9-order-of-magnitude slow down worth the trouble? I dunno. Maybe.
I haven’t tried it on desktop, but it’s running silky smooth for me on iPhone. No lag at all. I see some others complaining of that too so not sure what the issue is.
They didn’t claim the EU regulations forced Meta to ban anything. They claimed Meta decided “the juice is not worth the squeeze” when it comes to compliance. I don’t know who’s right to be fair, but I haven’t heard about any other instances of this with Meta, have you? What is it about this particular case? Never heard of this happening in the US. Possibly just an isolated incident blown out of proportion?
I built a few Kivy apps years ago at an old job. It was a little clunky, but it got the job done. Haven’t heard of this framework yet, I wonder how compares in developer experience? Anyone have any experience with it?
The problem is I don’t want to use Python for everything that bad. If I’m going to reach for a cross platform toolkit these days, I’m personally going to reach for Tauri. Could be useful if you’re really married to Python I suppose.
Managed to analyze what the LLM had made at my direction and re-work it to a very simply proof-of-concept which allows one to fill in some parameters, and then have it write out a G-code file to one's Downloads folder:
Tried the AI studio as noted elsethread and it got much further along than any other tool I've tried thus far.
Working on a different project and ran out of free credits, so got out my credit card ($20 for 10,000 tokens) and a few prompts and 2,447 tokens later arrived at:
Blew through all of my credits, but didn't get to a reasonable appearance in the UI, and still haven't adjusted and then tested the geometry for the toolpaths. Will have to see if I can grok the code and edit by hand.
Incorrect. As others have pointed out, BirdNet is a “traditional” neural network. The amount of compute needed to train something like this is many orders of magnitude less than an LLM. Something like this could be trained on local hardware with enough juice, or by renting a handful of GPU’s
And no, Amazon did not lose the “case”, which usually means “the whole lawsuit”. The current posture is still at the preliminary injunction stage. Amazon was granted a PI by district court (basically “perplexity, stop this now while litigation is ongoing”) and the appeals court overturned. Now the actual case can proceed at the district level.
I don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive to be honest. I’m not a mathematician, but I’m a software engineer and whether I like it or not, AI has changed my field dramatically forever. I understand the distaste for the way AI might be affecting the field of mathematics, but the genie is out of the bottle, and it will never be the same. It just took a little longer for it to hit the math community. Software engineers have been debating and coming to terms with the new reality for a few years now.
Soon AI mathematics will be 10x or 100x or 1000x more productive than humans in the proofing theorems business. Mathematics of old style is dead, they should develop ideas how to deal with that as a math community.
If a human doesn't understand the proof, it might be useful for certain kinds of engineering, but not really that useful for mathematics except as an existence test.
I don't known, can't we just also indirectly observe the wide platonic landscape of mathematics through observing AI results which humanity could not produce in a 1,000,000 years.
> But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal.
No one is paying mathematicians to develop a conceptual understanding. If the signal for who is “winning” math in academia disappears mathematicians will have a big problem
This is true. There can still be some funding for recreational aesthetic mathematics, like you can get some funding for various art projects or philisophy, literature, poetry, general humanities and community-building projects or sports funding or things like that. But currently many mathematicians are funded by the public purse with the understanding that this contributes to science and engineering and technological development at some point. I'm not saying that intellectual pursuits for the sake of human mental satisfaction is not worth funding in a society. The question is the amount of people needed. Tax payers pay for it. You have to tell them why, and why so many people need to be funded to do that. Many people have various hobbies they enjoy. But generally they don't get government money for doing it as the general rule. Maybe in a post-scarcity world.
The difference is that most software engineers don't care about bringing up a new generation to keep their field alive when they retire. Software engineers usually don't give a flying fuck for other software engineers, young or old, nor for software engineering itself. Mathematicians apparently care deeply for their subject, their field, and its future.
Mathematicians are not idiots! They’ve been living on the same planet as you for the last few years and everyone in any thinking profession has been debating and coming to terms with reality over the same period. People who aren’t involved in mathematics might see a big headline and come to the conclusion that mathematicians haven’t seen this coming, but that’s a completely ignorant position.
Nothing. I’m going to run my 13 Pro Max into the ground. I do find the “Reference images” interesting, but not so much in going to run out and buy one. Other than than it’s the same old “everything is better” marketing shtick
I guess I don’t really understand the reasons any engineering team would limit password length, but at least implement in a way that is apparent to the user. Successfully saving a password that is different than the user expects is wild.
Moreover, in the case of a financial institution like Vanguard, limiting password length feels particularly offensive.
reply