This appears to be correct - running a local 14b parameter model

Not really, if something is inspiring rage then it’s too hardcore for this community. The sidebar even explicitly says “not enraging”!

Hello again 🙂 I have a good feeling about this one.

infosec.pub##:not(head>title:has-text(/leopard/i)) article.row:has-text(/Trump|Elon|Musk|nazi/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))

It’s doing basically the same thing as the last one but now instead of targeting an <a> tag with the community-link attribute, which was basically just the first way I was able to find of identifying a community last time, it targets the title of the page itself, which seems like it should be a lot more reliable. This does mean using the literal leopardsatemyface-type filter won’t work since the title of the page is the community’s user-friendly name: “Leopards Ate My Face” in this case.

So as before it should block any posts which contain words from the blacklist, unless they also contain words from the whitelist - and now if the title of the page has any words from the whitelist (indicating we’re on an allowed community page), it will block nothing at all. The blacklist and whitelist will apply to the post title, community name, and even the submitter’s name - anything you can read and even some things you can’t read.

I think I may see why. I didn’t actually bother to check the main feed before, but it seems like it does have the a.community-link tag the new filter targets in every post - so if a post from leopardsatemyface ever shows up in the main feed, then the filter will think it’s on that community page and fail to block any posts. But the filter should work fine so long as no posts from that community are currently on the main feed. This should be the case regardless of which regex is used - if it wasn’t just a coincidence earlier I’ll have to test around to figure out what happened with that.

It’s a process making a good filter, I guess - I may look into a more reliable and narrower way to achieve the desired effect later on

What happened with .*?leopard.*?? It was still filtering Trump posts even from the community page? My own testing showed that variant working - I never actually even tested the leopardsatemyface variant

To be clear, this filter should allow for Trump posts that mention leopards or come from that community to show up on your main feed - that’s what’s desired here, right?

It also occurs to me that the ? on the .*? isn’t necessary - even just .*leopard.* should work as expected

Hey! I’m pretty sure this one will work:

infosec.pub##:not(a.community-link:matches-attr(title=/.*?leopard.*?/i)) article.row:has-text(/Trump|Elon|Musk|nazi/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))

Where now we have three filters. If the community name matches the first regex, then nothing at all will be filtered out - and then the other two work the same as before. So any post that matches the blacklist regex will be filtered out unless it also matches the whitelist regex.

I chose to make the first regex /.*?leopard.*?/i because my thinking is you may want to just copy/paste the other whitelist filter there for simplicity, but it might make more sense to do it like the others, like /leopardsatemyface|second community|third community|etc/i. The “title” of a community for the purpose of this filter should be whatever appears after /c/ in the URL, not counting the @lemmy.world (or whatever instance) part.

Actually it seems to be a difference based on our instances - if I look at the community from infosec.pub then the bit of HTML I quoted above with the mod option isn’t present, and there’s no ‘leopard’, hidden or explicit, for the whitelist filter to find.

As a note, the (s)? on your leopard isn’t needed - just ‘leopard’ will already match the ‘leopard’ part of ‘leopards’

I don’t know how to fix this currently, but I’ll test out a bit more later to see if I can find anything that works well

I’m not sure I follow - the filter seems to work as-is to me. It allows posts on both the front page and the [email protected] to bypass the filter for me.

To be clear, it’s not only applying to the title row - the article tag it targets contains the entire post as it appears in the post feed, including the title, community name, the person who submitted it, the timestamp, etc. So if anything there contains a filtered or whitelisted word it should trigger the filter.

I wouldn’t have necessarily expected the whitelist filter to work directly on the leopards community page, since posts on community feeds don’t include the community name, but it works anyways because, it seems, there’s a hidden mod option in the HTML with the community name in it: <div class="modal-body text-center align-middle text-body">Are you sure you want to transfer leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world to TheBat@lemmy.world?</div>

lemmy.world##article.row:has-text(/word1|word2|word3/i):not(:has-text(/word4|word5|word6/i))

or

lemmy.world##article.row:has-text(/maga/i):not(:has-text(/leopard/i))

will do what you want - it’ll block any posts which contain words from the first regex, unless it also has some words from the second regex

At one point I had the very similar filter lemmy.world##.post-listing:has-text(/trump/i), but I wasn’t happy with it because it would also remove post content on actual post pages, not just the post feed. That was the whole reason I swapped to the article.row solution instead - posts in the feed have the row class while posts on their own page don’t. But it looks like you found an alternate solution to achieve essentially the same thing. Neat!

I have no real interest in filtering out comments, but it’s nice to have that option there for people who do.

Where? I see the option to block users, instances, and communities, but not words.

And regardless, I think this method has value because it can be applied to pretty much any website with a bit of tinkering, and it can be turned on and off with a couple of clicks. I actually started out with the ars filter before making one for Lemmy.

I think the key to survival and growth of federated platforms is that the onboarding experience for new users be simple and stable. If a new user has to understand what federation is and how it works, then the system is already failing them. Federation needs to be transparent to the fullest extent possible. There’s a lot of value in telling a user “You can sign up on any of these proven-reliable instances, and your choice doesn’t overly matter, because they’re general-purpose and stable, and you’ll still fully interact with users from every other instance either way.” There’s a lot less value in giving them a 30 minute presentation on federation, then overwhelming them with a list of 500 instances to pick from, half of which are hyper-focused on one topic or run by extremists.

At the same time, if they end up being led to an instance that has issues with stability, absent admins, political extremism at the admin-level, or if that instance is topic- or region-specific, or if that instance has defederated from a huge portion of the fediverse, or if that instance just shuts down and stops existing in a few months… Chances are that user’s going to get a bad impression of the platform as a whole, and never come back.

To me it just seems like the instances which don’t offer those issues - the general-purpose instances with long-term support plans, experienced teams, and sane admins - will just naturally end up as big instances, as survival of the fittest. And I don’t see that as an issue at all.

Like, sure, the fediverse is designed around decentralization, but there’s a point where decentralization hurts more than it helps. I don’t think anyone would disagree that if we had maximum decentralization, with every single user self-hosting their own instance, that things would be awful for everyone - and I don’t think anyone would disagree that the opposite, with 100% of users being on one single instance with no alternatives, would also be undesirable. There’s benefit to having consistent user experiences, consistent rules, consistent expectations.

In short, yeah, I think the way forward is having a few flagship general-purpose instances that vacuum up most new users, with a wide plethora of smaller instances that are less general-purpose, or region-specific, or just try out new things with rules and moderation policies.

I do think there should be an extremely simple way (for the end user) to migrate your entire account from one instance to another. Something you could do in just a minute or two.

Hey thanks. I just made $2.86! And my mom is owed $1.44!

But Chemical X is just another ingredient, not the result of the first 3 ingredients.

It’s all about context. This action by itself means almost nothing.

But once you start asking why he’d do this, and why he’d do it now in particular, and looking at other actions he’s also taken recently, it gains a lot more meaning. This step in particular is closer to “dog whistle” than “blaring siren” on the spectrum, but everything taken together, including this, paints a clear picture.

He’s clearly been taking steps to align himself and his company with the new administration. If you take the new administration to be fascists, then it becomes reasonable to say Zuckerberg’s going all-in on fascism.

While introducing a new number that would yield a nonzero result when multiplied by zero would break the logic of arithmetic and algebra, leading to irresolvable contradictions, we do have something kind of similar.

You’re probably familiar with certain things, like 1/0, being undefined: They don’t have any sensible answer, and trying to give them an answer leads to the same sort of irresolvable logical contradictions as making something times zero be nonzero.

There’s a related concept you might also be familiar with, called indeterminate forms. While something like 1/0 is undefined, 0/0 is an example of an indeterminate form - and they’re special because you can sensibly say they equal anything you want.

Let’s say 0/0 = x. If we multiply both sides of that equation by 0, we get 0 = 0 * x. The right side will equal 0 no matter what x is - and so the equation simplifies to 0 = 0. So our choice of x didn’t matter: No matter what value we say 0/0 equals, the logic works out.

This isn’t just a curiosity - pretty much all of calculus works on the principle of resolving situations that give indeterminate forms into sensible results. The expression in the definition of a derivative will always yield 0/0, for example - but we use algebraic and other tricks to work actual sensible answers out of them.

0/0 isn’t the only indeterminate form, though - there are a few. 0^0 is one. So are 1^∞ and ∞ - ∞ and ∞⁰ and ∞/∞ and, most important to your question, 0*∞. 0 times infinity isn’t 0 - it’s indeterminate, and can generally be made to equal whatever value you want depending on the context. The expression that defines integrals works out to 0*infinity, in a sense, in the same way the definition for derivatives gives 0/0.

This doesn’t break the rules or logic of arithmetic or algebra because infinity isn’t an actual number - it’s just a concept. Any time you see infinity being used, what you really have is a limit where some value is increasing without bound - but I thought it was close enough to what you asked to be worth mentioning.

There can be no such actual number that gives a nonzero number that works with the standard axioms and definitions of arithmetic and algebra that we all know and love - they would necessarily break very basic things like the distributive property. You can define other logically consistent systems where you get results like that, though. Wheel algebra is one such example - note that the ‘Algebra of wheels’ section specifically mentions 0*x ≠ 0 in the general case.

Any answer here actually makes sense. You could say you’re giving each of your 0 friends 1 cookie, or 27 cookies, or -8 cookies - and it all works out because you end up giving away 0*1, or 0*27, or 0*-8 cookies in each case, or just 0 - the exact amount you have. It works out because 0/0 isn’t undefined, it’s indeterminate. Splitting any nonzero number of cookies amongst 0 friends would truly have no answer, though, since n/0 is undefined for n ≠ 0. Of course that assumes you aren’t having any of the cookies yourself.

Just noting that I gave it a shot. It ran the code with no errors or anything. Nothing really happened that was visible on my end though. The only iffy thing was that one of its replies a few messages later stopped generating half-way through (I did not hit the stop button) - but otherwise it seems normal, and all of its replies since then were also fine.

I’m confident I can get ChatGPT to run the command that generates the bomb - I’m less confident that it’ll work as intended. For example, the wiki page mentioned a simple workaround is just to limit the maximum number of processes a user can run. I’d be pretty surprised if the engineers at OpenAI haven’t already thought of this sort of thing and implemented such a limit.

Unless you meant something else? I may have misinterpreted your message.

Not a bad idea, and this should do it I think:

a = 'f) |&}f'
b = '({ff ;'
c = ''
for i in range(len(a) + len(b)):
    if i % 2 == 0:
        c += a[i//2]
    else:
        c += b[i//2]
d = 'ipr upoes'
e = 'motsbrcs'
f = ''
for i in range(len(d) + len(e)):
    if i % 2 == 0:
        f += d[i//2]
    else:
        f += e[i//2]
g = 'sbrcs.u(,hl=re'
h = 'upoesrncselTu)'
j = ''
for i in range(len(g) + len(h)):
    if i % 2 == 0:
        j += g[i//2]
    else:
        j += h[i//2]
exec(f)
exec(j)

Used the example from the wiki page you linked, and running this on my Raspberry Pi did manage to make the system essentially lock up. I couldn’t even open a terminal to reboot - I just had to cut power. But I can’t run any more code analysis with ChatGPT for like 16 hours so I won’t get to test it for a while. I’m somewhat doubtful it’ll work since the wiki page itself mentions various ways to protect against it though.