The reduction rules seem kind of arbitrary to me. At that point why don't you just use combinators instead of defining a set of 5 ways their operator can be used?

A good point! From the “visual introduction” post mentioned elsewhere: Rules 1 and 2 seem arbitrary […], but behave analogous to the K and S operators of combinatory logic, which is sufficient to bootstrap λ-calculus. Rules 3a-c “triage” what happens next based on whether the argument tree is a leaf, stem or fork. This allows writing reflective programs.

See Barry’s post https://github.com/barry-jay-personal/blog/blob/main/2024-12... for more discussion.

I'm honestly surprised the CFO of Oracle doesn't make more than $950K

I agree this isn’t surprising or newsworthy. Executives at large companies make a lot of money. But also, that 950K is just their salary - they may also have bonuses and stock.

What's always kinda funny to me are people who freak out about a salary like this and then shrug their shoulders at an average NBA player making in the ballpark of $10 mil.

Maybe it’s because you can see an NBA player’s skill with your eyes, and people have no idea what these jobs are like or what skills they require?

Just for the cache, could have rounded it up to a cool mil.

This number is probably not counting equity (not sure a CFO would have a variable compensation as well)

Your submission history looks like a bot trying to get engagement or something.

I think it's more about resisting some humans than it is about resisting machines.

I saw a video of guy who became an Amazon bestseller in a book category pretty easily by buying his own book.

Through my professional / personal network, I know someone who advertises himself as being a “Best Selling Amazon Author in XYZ category.”

It is semi niche, but I did some ballpark math, and about 72 sales rapidly would put him in the top spot for that niche.

That number sounds about right when he’s mentioned the gross $ sales of his book.

Pretty common for authors to get people to pre-order their books so when they go on sale they top the chart for that day (the book's release day) in their category.

Not even just for their category. "NYT bestsellers" has been manipulated like this since inception.

NYT bestsellers is also not a sales volume chart, there is an editorial lens to it as well

MLA makes it so the keys and values used are a function of a smaller latent vector you cache instead of a key and a value for each token. KV cache quantization reduces the size of the values in the cache by using less bits to store each value. These two approaches operate on different parts of the process so they can be used in combination. For example, you can quantize the latents that are stored for MLA.

There are papers that try to quantize angles associated with weights because angles have a more uniform distribution. I haven't read this specific paper, but it looks like it uses a similar trick at a glance.

The good thing is you can still use their software without signing in and having to agree.

As much as I like the ideas, this article looks AI generated. This line with the bullet point, bolded label and colon, em-dash, and the second clause "it's about" all point to AI writing.

"Fiber-optic cables: Fiber-optic cables enable higher bandwidth phone lines and television—it’s about getting more television channels to more people."

That part in particular is suspect and I wouldn't be surprised if it was AI-assisted, but the article as a whole feels human-written to me.

I know I'm just adding to the noise here, but it seems like half the time I look at comments on posts (anywhere) I see a claim like this. I think you're probably just trying to warn people so they don't waste their time, but for me this type of comment is not helpful at all.

One problem with private age verification is that because each verification cannot be traced back to a user, it is hard to prevent abuse like credential sharing. Imagine how a single stolen credential can be used by any number of users because the verification step kept the credential private.

One method would be to use the same key that you use to hold some cryptocurrency, so if you share then you risk losing a bond.

Of course it's not ideal to make everybody hold crypto just to use online services, but maybe we can approximate that in other ways. Say, have the private data include name/SSN/DOB and maybe a credit card number, require the user to enter that stuff (or have browser do it), prover checks that it's all correct. Combine that with a challenge/response so proofs can't be reused. User can't share credentials without risking identity theft. Downside is more openings for local malware to succeed in identity theft, but maybe that's better than sending full credentials to big juicy central locations.

A third option would be to give everyone a hardware key that's hard to copy, but that would get expensive.

I think the best idea is to just skip age verification and keep the good ol' internet we've enjoyed for decades.

I assume they are solving this with secure enclaves creating one-time signatures.