Good advice if you're not using the default PHP session settings, but using default settings this means sessions can't be created. At best, that means no-one can log-in. At worst, it completely breaks the site (for those that depend on sessions even for unauthenticated users).
"How to make your site cost unlimited money and have terrible performance". People did this in the Web 1.0 days on occasion and it leads to all kinds of problems for any site with any kind of traffic.
>Or you make an exception for them.
Useless. All you need to do at that point is chain a priv-esc to your existing exploit and you get root.
Heh, but for better or for worse, a bunch of people have built businesses out of WordPress and its ecosystem. One of them is my aunt, which is why (as a designated family tech support person, though she does have a part time developer) I'm watching this thread closely!
Does she actually need WordPress/Plugin features or is it mostly about editing the site herself? would something like Publii work too? Static sites dont have CVEs and you still get a nice WYSIWYG editor so she can update the site on her own.
Did this with my parents websites and they are quite happy and I get basically no support calls (and can read threads like this one out of interest only, thankfully)
Sadly yes, it's a whole stack (built for her by a vaguely technical cofounder who has since left the business) with a bunch of business-critical plugins, including Woocommerce for handling credit card payments via Stripe and another plugin handling bookings. It's amazing for what it is but it is a bit of a nightmare to keep going.
And how do you propose we do that if we’re not the ones selling the fossils?
Fossil fuel usage is for the most part, a transaction between willing participants at a fair market price. Will you ban that? How will you enforce it? I hate to be presumptuous, but I assume you’re not a fan of colonialism or wars in the Middle East.
While oil is as valuable as it is for heating, industry, transport, war, and gestures widely at our modern lifestyle. There are two realistic ways to stop it: replace it with something cheaper and better, or genocide.
Neither of these are likely to happen at the scale and timeline required to solve our predicament. But regardless, pretending we can just stop people far poorer than us from striving to meet our standing of living by… asking nicely? It doesn’t help, if your goal is indeed to solve the problem.
> And how do you propose we do that if we’re not the ones selling the fossils?
Because we would be the ones not _buying_ the fossils?
There are multiple ways to reduce fossil fuels dependency, and they are known (and no, they do not involve genocide or colonialism). In Canada, carbon tax is an example, backed by economic studies (from right wight economists) and originally introduced by conservative (in Canada at least). Of course, then right wing parties started to convince people to "axe the tax" because it was the root cause of their problems (which is was, of course, not).
That's always the issue, and that's always been bugging me. Why is it that not being able to replace, today, 100% of the fossil fuels usage means "gee, we should do nothing, let's actually increase our production!"? How do we come from "such an energetic transition is a multi generation work" (which is true) to "meh too hard, let's double down"? How can we seriously make the argument "hey, I _could_ clean up the mess in my backyard, but anyway my neighbor is way worse and he has a larger backyard, let's do nothing instead"?
I really don't see how these positions are seen as the "voice of reason". To me, there at best the voice of laziness.
So reading this, I know it’s probably a human posing as an LLM. But the problem with formats like this is that I don’t actually know.
If a human said this to me in real life, and I laughed, it would probably help build a connection with that person, as it’s signaling that we have in common an unusually strong grasp of the patterns in LLM output (unusually strong at least in comparison to the general population).
But here? I don’t gain anything by reading this comment. It only contributes to the uncertainty that anything I read on this site has any meaning at all.
Please, if you’re a human, don’t mimic LLMs on forums where the reader cannot distinguish you from an LLM without doing investigative work.
And you’re an LLM, please report to your owner that he is an ass for polluting one of the last bastions of high entropy discussion on the information superhighway.
What regulations would you suggest would be the software equivalent of a fire code?
What kind of penalties would apply for not meeting these regulations?
Who would be responsible for enforcement? Do you propose this should apply internationally? Or just to software written in a specific region? Or is the location of where software is hosted (or the headquarters of the company operating the hardware) a better target for legislation?
You don't want to see how the sausage is made for medical software. The average quality I would put at below your median SaaS webapp. Security especially is not something you should expect.
GPUs do have a use in warfare though. I mean, LLMs are basically offensive weapons disguised as software engineers.
Sure, LLMs can kind of put together a prototype of some CRUD app, so long as it doesn’t need to be maintainable, understandable, innovative or secure. But they excel at persisting until some arbitrary well defined condition is met, and it appears to be the case that “you gain entry to system X” works well as one of those conditions.
Given the amount of industrial infrastructure connected to the internet, and the ways in which it can break, LLMs are at some point going to be used as weapons. And it seems likely that they’ll be rather effective.
FWIW, people first saw TNT as a way to dye things yellow, and then as a mining tool. So LLMs starting out as chatbots and then being seen as (bad) software engineers does put them in good company.
Imagine comparing something that has a useful life of 100+ years vs a thing that is worn out, much less durable, and needs replacing much more often and can become obselete from innovation within its own product category.
Comical. China can continue innovating on GPUs and all this existing spend to stock up on compute is a waste. Again, comical. Moreover China has energy capacity that the US does not. Meaning all those GPU's that deliver less performance per watt? Yep going in the bin.
So yeah.. carry on telling me how this is going to yield some supreme advantage lmao.
They’re unclassified public cloud GPUs today, much the same as the massive industrial base of the United States was churning out harmless consumer widgets in 1939. Those widget makers happened to be reconfigurable into weapon makers, and so wartime production exploded from 2% to 40% of GDP in 5 years [1]. But the total industrial output of course didn’t expand by nearly that much.
I think it’s maybe plausible that private compute feels similar in the next do-or-die global war.
The United States has almost no domestic capability to produce advanced semiconductors. There is no abundance of industrial capacity cranking out GPUs that can be quickly diverted from AI companies into weapon systems.
Even if private compute was at a level of maturity where you could use it for classified workloads, knowing that the infrastructure is being managed by someone in India or China, securely getting data into and out of that infrastructure is still a mostly unsolvable problem.
My point is the existing private DCs can be reconfigured for a different use. Building new gpus is not required to on-shore compute. We already have it. Obviously if the military started contracting out compute onto the hyperscalar clusters it would involve a host of changes. I wasn’t aware that they were letting India and China manage their infrastructure… That seems exceedingly unlikely? That relationship would obviously be severed if the compute was reconfigured for the military.
yields are constantly improving on monthly basis, according to executives around 7% per month, so the capability is definitely there, but yields still needs some time
Importing might be banned until the US loses access to its main source of GPU manufacturing. And what are the US going to do about it? Defend Taiwan? With missiles made with components and materials processed where, pray tell?
The US does need to start protecting its manufacturing again, but it’d be lucky to start at a level as high as high end semiconductors. That’d be like a stroke victim trying to run before they re-learn to walk.
As others have pointed out, this means less services, more manufacturing, less consumption, a probably a lower standard of living. But with the business as usual alternative looking a lot like business as usual in the western Roman Empire circa 450 CE, taking a hit to your standard of living while investing in a future which you still have the slightest control over, maybe feels like a decent trade.
Nuclear wasn’t completely replaced. The graphs you link to show that Germany’s electricity generation have dropped to the level it was at in the year 2000, and that’s before the last of the nuclear plants were turned off.
As a result, Germany’s industrial production is falling. Which will be great for the environment if countries who previously imported goods produced by Germany’s clean nuclear power don’t just switch to goods produced by China and South East Asia’s far dirtier electricity.
Of course, China is steadily increasing its own nuclear energy production, so it’ll end up being clean eventually, and likely sooner than us given how efficient they are.
But it’s not like we’re reducing dependency on nuclear power. It’s more like we’re trading the risk of nuclear accident in our own backyards for something else. I tend to think that the something else is the risk that the eastern world’s factories stop accepting the western world’s increasingly worthless paper money, which they’ll be in a much stronger position to do once we’re no longer able to manufacture what we need due to environmental concerns.
It's true that energy intensive industry has been hit hard in Germany. But is also true that the sector has been heavily subsidized for decades. As the carbon mining sector. That was effectively paying the energy cost of those industries with taxes.
In Spain, where we didn's shut down nuclear energy nor have oil or coal, energy intensive industry is also threatening or shutting down (https://www.miningweekly.com/article/alcoa-threatens-to-shut...). The threats are barely hidden "subsidize our costs or else...".
Indeed: if cheap (for the consumer, not for the taxpayer...) nuclear electricity was sufficient France industry would thrive. Reality: it (sadly) is dying.
That assumes that once a golden goose dies, there’s an infinite supply of replacements. There’s a reason we’re comparing these companies to a mythical creature after all: if sustainable businesses producing valuable things were easy to create, this website wouldn’t exist.
The thing is, the people who own these companies also happen to live in a word powered by the products they produce. If you kill a bunch of golden geese in pursuit of profits, they will see bigger numbers in their broker accounts, but it’ll be because everything we all use has become scarcer and more expensive.
Sure, the owners will look richer - at least in comparison to everyone else. But would you rather be rich in a world of scarcity? Or middle class in a world of abundance?
You seem to be making a bunch of somewhat odd assumptions? Eg that investors are idiots, and that it's easy to beat the market?
I was answering the hypothetical example of one company having this magic button. With the rest of the world operating as normal.
If you want to figure out the optimal approach to many companies having such magic buttons, that's a slightly different question.
You are right that creating companies isn't easy nor trivial. That's why the market so richly rewards creating successful companies from scratch. But that's nothing that a well-diversified investor needs to worry about for this particular decision. You just look at market prices.
> The thing is, the people who own these companies also happen to live in a word powered by the products they produce. If you kill a bunch of golden geese in pursuit of profits, they will see bigger numbers in their broker accounts, but it’ll be because everything we all use has become scarcer and more expensive.
> Sure, the owners will look richer - at least in comparison to everyone else. But would you rather be rich in a world of scarcity? Or middle class in a world of abundance?
You seem to assume zero competition? And also that the stock market is really bad at evaluating business decisions (at least worse than you)? If the latter is the case, you should become an investor and make a killing!
Especially if you are living in a world where everyone else is stupidly slaughtering their golden geese, you should be able to pick up some disgruntled ex-employees for cheap and just run a steady ship!
Another important consideration: at some level of abstraction a company is just a legal shell. 'Killing' a company might just mean that the old equity (another legal abstraction) is deleted, and the former creditors turn into equity holders. The operations don't even need to be affected by this at all. Of course, you can also 'kill' a company by shutting it down. But again, that doesn't necessarily remove any of the demand for its (type of) products, nor does it remove the experience of the people working there, nor does it break any of the machinery and hardware.
So if Adobe goes belly up, there are already plenty of other companies willing to fill their former niche.
That's what the post-WW2 world looked like: the developed countries had booming economies, but the poor countries fell further and further behind. Some even in absolute terms.
Yet, that time is frequently cited as the golden age that people harken back to.
I personally don't use LLMs to code, besides a few snippets or when i'm out of ideas what/how do to. But models like Starcoder and Code Llama is what i see people often using for this purpose. There are benchmarks for various languages, you can find those on Hugging Face.
Yes, it does, but some of us actually consider this to be a feature.
The issue with reversibility is that it’s not just reversibility - it’s also the power for the authorities to take your assets from you.
The question isn’t “do you want to be able to get your money back after it was stolen”, it’s really, “do you want the powers that be to be able to decide whose money it is.” We’ve been lucky to live in a world where “yes” is a reasonable answer. But there’s no guarantee that it’ll stay that way. And crypto is insurance against that possible change.
In what way is crypto an insurance there? Typically, ruthless regimes are good at separating you from your assets. I don't see any of the typical methods not working with crypto.
It's really only an insurance against marginally bad situations and there lots of other things work equally well.
To be clear, "crypto" is just a book that says these individuals own however many tokens. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will abide by what the books says. It doesn't guarantee that nobody will take your real wealth from you by force.
Turning it off may cause deaths. Letting it get ransomwared may cause more. Do you pull the lever to turn it off?