> What Factually does is different. It takes a question typed by a user and hands it to a Large Language Model, or LLM, to generate some query strings. It performs up to three Internet search queries, then feeds the top nine web pages it found to a pair of LLMs ...
So it selects its sources according to their SEO-gaming proficiency?
A parallel to AI-slop has existed for generations now out here in meatspace: Administrative/legal people on the periphery of a technical field (though possibly alas, at the top of the org's command chain) who do not at all understand what technical terms signify, but having seen hundreds of sentences produced by real experts, become able to themselves string together plausible-looking assertions.
This suggests a misunderstanding of the Standard Ebooks process, which allows continual incremental corrections to the authoritative source of individual books (in XHTML, on GitHub). So, a truly unique identifier would only be valid to the production output(s) from a particular state of the Git-repo sources.
Asynchronous to the correction process, Standard Ebooks updates its own production tools. So if an individual book's content requires correction, should the "respin" be done with TOT tools, or with the versions available at time of first publication? Disclaimer: I don't actually know which is current practice -- but using the TOT tool suite is obviously vastly easier.
For most practical purposes, I'd suggest the git-commit date, along with short substrings of author name and title, would suffice.
>This suggests a misunderstanding of the Standard Ebooks process, which allows continual incremental corrections to the authoritative source of individual books (in XHTML, on GitHub). So, a truly unique identifier would only be valid to the production output(s) from a particular state of the Git-repo sources.
Well, one of us has a misunderstanding. Just because the printer strikes off the printing number from the colophon for each subsequent printing, they don't actually issue a new ISBN. That stays the same. If they wanted to also include a version number too, I wouldn't mind that as well, but it's not nearly as necessary as this. I use the year as a rough version number in the file names as well.
>Recall also that final user content is made available in multiple formats, currently at least six. Example:
I don't need them to issue a number per file format, but if they want to... that doesn't bother me. That's sort of self-evident which of the formats it is, after all.
>I'd suggest the git-commit date, along with short substrings of author name and title, would suffice.
It doesn't. A number of authors have at one time or another have released books with similar or identical titles that are not the same book. This is the trouble... someone who uses or would use the books is asking for something that is missing but easy to supply, and instead of a "well gee, we never considered that, let us think about it" I have a dozen assholes crawling out of the woodwork to say "no, you're doing it wrong".
I need unique identifiers that are human readable. I just do. The world discovered this need for books before you were born. They invented a global standard, even. There is an entire field of science out there about this, that you seem to be ignorant of even existing. I've been doing this for years, and I keep bumping up against it. But you think it can be solved because you used git and know about hashes or whatever, and it's just like what you deal with in your software development job!
Thanks! So I learned something new about Emacs again. It never ends.
Aliasing something to make it easier to M-x sounds like the next step after running out of letters to use with C-c? I have not reached that point yet, but that was another thing I never considered that could be useful to remember.
> achieved something rare for tuition-free, online universities: a Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation. This puts it in the same league as the University of Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, ...
Unable just now to find any of the above-named three by querying the WASC school search page:
ACSWASC is the Accrediting Commission for elementary and secondary schools, adult schools, and supplementary education programs. WSCUC is the senior college and university commission.
So, in that case the browser (correctly) did not autofill? Is that a common occurrence for legit traffic from X? And no complaint about the website's identity from the browser -- the expected "lock" icon left of the URL?
As long as people are used to companies just buying new domains for the hell of it, yes. Just look at the amount of domains Microsoft uses for signing in! My password manager currently holds 8 of them. Eight! Who can be blamed for thinking it’s the password managers fault?
I want to do the same, but there was some heavy discord at the top of the community a year or so ago that left me fearing for the org's future. If there was a satisfactory resolution, I haven't heard about it.
That's concerning to hear. What discord? The number one thing I want from Debian is predictability, dependability. Other than that, it's not even that great of a distro. I don't use it for my own machines.
I'm still confused. Does this mean that HN switches CF on or off in response to recent volume of bot traffic?
reply