hmm, my money is on some actively used 0-day exploit that Apple is sealing shut before the CVE gets announced.

By the looks of the app list, they seem to be apps and games that used to be popular and have fallen in disrepair and apps that are starved of maintenance attention.

On the one hand it could be an exceptionally good example of "stewardship"; on the other hand, if this is true, what if authorities could later compel Apple to manipulate applications in some malign manner?

If you are worried about apple being compelled to do something, then they can do that at the OS level rather than something obvious in the

I think this is simply updating some api call which no longer works properly, coupled with the terrible "changelogs" that are the norm on the app store. Someone down thread mentioned certificate rollover.

A sensible changelog would be "update expired certificate", or "fix integration with ios 26.2", or "patch security issue"

An actual changelog would be "we're bringing you ever more great new improvements"

Here's the latest Audible one:

> At Audible, we're always making updates and improvements to make your listening experience better.

> If you're experiencing issues, please reach out to customer services. For feedback or suggestions contact us at audible.co.uk/help

This is the same every time, because these changelogs are meaningless.

> my money is on some actively used 0-day exploit that Apple is sealing shut

Why not an introduction of a new exploit ? This could be handy in those uncertain times.

Pardon my simplistic question, but when you mean rotation you’re essentially talking about diagonalization aren’t you?

So storing the diagonal as a matrix and the new bases is more compact?

In this context, the rotation is for spreading energy and ensuring predictable coordinate distributions rather than diagonalization; it makes coordinate-wise quantization much more computationally efficient, though it throws away learnable structure.

ah ok, so intuitively it's like minimizing the error when replacing the values with a well-known distribution. So all you need to carry along is the rotation and the assumption that there is some amount of loss.

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.

I’d wager the US is self sufficient also in terms of renewable energies.

I guess the point is: delegate to kernel, then “oh, people with root can bypass with modules? Secure Boot!”

And then only trusted devices with an “acceptable” posture and valid manufacturer attestation can participate! Hellscape.

This is exactly what will happen.

This is the answer

Asked for an export but still haven’t received the mail with the download link

Took exactly 24 hours for me, on the minute..

Me too, why do they do that?

It is relevant. Anthropic would have argued the US military could not use its tools to process data gathered by foreign agencies when it applied to US citizens or soil.

So there you have it

And that’s where the authoritarian in you is shining through.

You see, Obama droned more combatants than anyone else before or after him but always followed a legal paper trail and following the book (except perhaps in some cases, search for Anwar al-Awlaki).

One can argue whether the rules and laws (secret courts, proceedings, asymmetries in court processes that severely compress civil liberties… to the point they might violate other constitutional rights) are legitimate, but he operated within the limits of the law.

You folks just blurt “me ne frego” like a random Mussolini and think you’re being patriotic.

SMH

Majority. Parent said majority

Exactly. Use after free is common enough that you can't just assert that out-of-bounds is the majority without evidence.

actually you may be right, according to project zero by google [1], ~50% is use after free and only ~20% for out of bounds errors, however, this is for errors that resulted in major exploits, i'm not sure what the overall data is

[1] https://projectzero.google/2022/04/the-more-you-know-more-yo...

OT: it's not the first time I see this grammatical mistake: "didn’t trained". Is it some accepted regional variation?

I think he is a non-native speaker, like me. I also do this mistake very often and 'didn't train' is a bit counter-intuitive - at least for me.

I think that happens when as a German you're used to using the Plusquamperfekt which is a somewhat unique tense that's allowed to be used in all past tenses.

It allows you to not having to define the point in time and neither the frame of the timespan's points in time.

Some languages allow to use that type of tense and it's somewhat a language gap I suppose. I have no idea what other languages or proto languages allow that tense though, but I've seen some Slavic and maybe Finnish(?) natives use that tense in English, too.

Maybe someone more elaborate in these matters has better examples?

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plusquamperfekt

English has present perfect, and past perfect. E.g. "I have walked" and "I had walked", both tenses are participated (ie "walked" instead of "walk"). These two are similar to the German Perfekt and Plusquamperfekt which are also participated.

The problem here is that the simple past "He went" uses an auxiliary verb for negations "He didn't go". In this case, "go" is not participated.

id think its germanic, dutch have it too

Thank you! I assume “didn’t train” is correct. Probably my favorite mistake! I like it when people point out mistakes, give me corrections, and explain why. The reason is crucial.

Maybe “hadn’t trained” is even better. Makes sense when ordering times. But I don’t trust LLMs an inch. It makes up options for git[1] and both GCC and CLANG are often immediately telling me that the LLM is lying.

Cookieengineer and illichosky are right.

[1] Considering that man pages exist, it shows how useless their harmful crawlers are.