Are you suggesting Rust should automatically insert the borrow annotation because it is able to see that a borrow is sufficient? That would be quite unintuitive and make it ambiguous whether a for loop is borrowing or consuming the iterator without reviewing the body. I'd strongly argue that it should unambiguously do either one or the other and not try and read the author's mind.
Yes, I'm suggesting it should do the right thing for the code the loop is actually trying to execute. I personally think this is exactly what Rust and its users have signed up for. I might be mistaken about that, but I think it's in line with the more general view that Rust is attempting to be as close as it can get to a language that reads like it has a garbage collector without having one.
> the more general view that Rust is attempting to be as close as it can get to a language that reads like it has a garbage collector without having one.
I've used Rust a fair amount, and I've never seen that expressed as a goal.
A couple of general principles followed by Rust are to prefer explicit code over implicit conversions and to support local reasoning. Those are both present here: the borrow needs to be made explicitly, rather than implicitly based on code later on.
I think you have misread the abstract. The 'low statistical significance' was a [prior work](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/acf577). This paper has increased the significance to 3-sigmas which is on the lower end but still quite significant.
This is what an illegal meme looks like: "Tyler Kay, 26, wrote a post... calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set alight. He responded to several comments posted by others following his post, adding that it was “100% the plan”.
Kay also reposted... another message inciting action against a named immigration solicitors in Northampton" https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/man-jailed-just-two-days-aft...
I think we are stretching the definition of a meme here. This was original content orchestrating attacks. Not some repost of a joke (however bad taste it might be).
At which point is the boundary between meme and instigator?
I'm pretty sure that's the point they're getting at - that the original person commenting was talking about this stuff like it's just memes, in bad faith.
I'm curious if a multimodal model would be better at the OCR step than tesseract? Probably would increase the cost but I wonder if that would be offset by needing less post processing.
I couldn't find any comparisons with Microsoft's TrOCR model. I guess they are for different purposes. But since you used Florence-2 for OCR, did you compare the two?
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I don't feel confident using gpt4o/claude for OCR, as I often experience issues mentioned on this page https://github.com/Yuliang-Liu/MultimodalOCR
[edit] But it is not applicable to OCR specialised models like Florence-2
IME GPT-4V is a lot better than Tesseract, including on scanned document PDFs. The thing about frontier models is they aren’t free but they keep getting better too. I’m not using tesseract for anything anymore, for my tasks it’s obsolete.
My experience is that at least the models which are price-competitive (~= open weight and small enough to run on a 3/4090 - MiniCPM-V, Phi-3-V, Kosmos-2.5) are not as good as Tesseract or EasyOCR. They're often more accurate on plain text where their language knowledge is useful but on symbols, numbers, and weird formatting they're at best even. Sometimes they go completely off the rails when they see a dashed line or handwriting or an image, things which the conventional OCR tools can ignore or at least recover from.
I found Claude3 great an reading documents. Plus it can describe figures. The only issue I ran into was giving it a 2-column article, and if reading the first line on each column "kinda made sense" together it would treat the entire thing as 1 column.
This behaviour is also important for ergonomic submodules. The .gitmodules file lists the upstream repo as the origin. So, if you're modifying an upstream project in a submodule and push changes to a fork, it's important that the SHA that git tracks is still reachable through the upstream link.
Ultimately I don't think it's feasible to break this behaviour and the most we can hope for is a big red warning when something counterintuitive happens.
Can I ask for why it wouldn't have been discovered if the obvious delay wasn't present? Wouldn't anyone profiling a running sshd (which I have to imagine someone out there is doing) see it spending all its crypto time in liblzma?
The situation certainly wouldn't be helped by the fact that this exploit targeted the systemd integration used by Debian and Red Hat. OpenSSH developers aren't likely to run that since they already rejected that patch for the increased attack surface. Hard to argue against, in retrospect. The attack also avoids activation under those conditions a profiler or debugger would run under.
> What information is shared with third-party partners?
> Your files within Dropbox are sent to a third-party AI only when you chose to interact with AI powered features. For example, when you ask a question about a file.
SoundAssistant on Samsung devices lets you do this as well. It gives you per-app sliders which stack with the main slider allowing you to go below 1% -- or whatever number rounds to "off" on your headphones.
reply