Honestly, I think I'm more likely to get your form wrong than the original one. This doesn't obviously look wrong to me:

   game->boardPieces = swAlloc(sizeof game->boardPieces * row * column);

Maybe I find this harder to parse because I'm not used to sizeof without brackets (though I know it's valid). But I think the bigger deal is that your version has a bug if the star is missing whereas there's has a bug if the star is present; it's easier to spot something extra than it is to spot something missing.

> And, of course, 35 is the same score claimed by AI systems from Google, OpenAI, and others.

This is the part of the quote your6 replying about.

You seemed to take "of course" as an implication that the contestants used LLMs, and that's why they got the same score as the LLMs.

I took it to mean: since this was the modal score, there seemed to be 35 points worth of significantly easier answers (relatively speaking) than the remaining points, so it's not a surprise that LLMs got the same easier bits right. (Though I doubt all contestants got their points on exactly the same answers.)

But it's certainly unclear what exactly the author meant.

Later in the same blog post, the author says:

> We can also consider the IMO 2025 problems individually. In the Epoch AI newsletter, Greg Burnham combines a subjective analysis with Evan Chen’s MOHS ratings to argue that the first five problems at IMO 2025 were unusually easy and the sixth was unusually hard, so it’s not surprising that the first five problems were exactly the ones solved by these AIs. Though I’m not sure the MOHS scale is rigorous enough to make sense as the x-axis of a bar chart it’s easy to corroborate the high-level story with the official IMO statistics. Based on average scores, this year’s Problem 6 was the fourth hardest and its Problem 3 was by far the easiest of all Problem 3s and 6s since 2000.

In the linked MaxProof paper, in the section "6.3.1. Per-Problem Analysis" it shows the same behavior: 7/7 in the first 5 problems, 0/7 in the last problem.

> nitpick: the “where is erica?” is a catchy title for the feature being showcased - which is actually a notification that your child made it to school safely.

When I click on that square it says:

> See everyone’s location using the Find My app. And receive alerts when they arrive at their destination or get home. Parents can also get alerts when their child leaves a location, like school.

So the image shows a notification, but it claims to be possible to inspect their location at any time too.

you’re correct - that’s the purpose of the Find My app. And this app can send useful notifications.

That was my first instinct too, but nothing the author said indicates they actually need non-strict aliasing. If the function had been:

   void DoSomething(void* src, void* dst, size_t numBytes);

... then it would be a different matter since maybe you want to allow src and dst to alias. Although, even then, they're still allowed to alias so long as the function accesses them both through char*, so the function signature can still use void*.

(Going deeper, non-strict aliasing applies to any pointers of the same type passed to a function. So if src and dst were both cast to float* inside the function, and if they really are both of that type (technically "an object of type float exists at the pointed-to location) then they can still alias. The char* exception is the only case that you can access a memory location through two different types of pointer and they can still alias.)

It's interesting the author mentions uint8_t. It's certainly more explicit than char, but it doesn't have the same aliasing guarantee (very strictly speaking - in practice it's almost always an alias for unsigned char or char, which does).

This is actually pretty annoying in embedded programming in C, because you'd often really prefer to use a uint8_t buffer[] for serialization functions (e.g. to write arbitrary data on some bus etc.) over char*, but you'd actually lose the aliasing permissiveness that you need (if you are strictly sticking to the standard-- this is often ignored in practice).

Where is my non-humanoid robot that does all the household cleaning? Including vacuuming the stairs (a roomba doesn't work there), dusting the surfaces, mopping floors, cleaning windows...

I guess a warehouse can be designed in a way that works well for a non-humanoid robot, but an environment designed for people in the first place (like a home) fundamentally needs to be person-shaped.

"Your OneDrive data..."

No, it's not my OneDrive data. What an infuriatingly click-bait title.

It's OneDrive data for individaul user accounts at organisations that are unlicensed (probably, as the article says, for people that have left).

I'm also unsure what they wanted Microsoft to do. Just store data that apparently doesn't belong to anyone anymore forever?

OneDrive turns itself on after an update so what you think is local data can easily become cloud data. Then while you're not paying attention to a long running system they quietly delete it. Then folks like you come out of the woodwork to defend them. It's hilarious.

What system would still be storing this locally long after the user has left the company?

The second half of your comment is bordering on a personal attack and not very helpful.

You are the example I was pointing out. At no point did I say anything about a company account. This happens on all windows machines. You can for example login to a machine acting as a server simply to use the Microsoft store to install something only to have it start syncing your files to that machine or even intermingle them and then force you to go through a tedious clean up process.

I have seen grandparents accidently lose all their files because they didn't know their files were being synced and then when they removed the Microsoft account from their machine suddenly their files are missing. Situations where they were told by support to logout / login only to lose all their data. These people take weeks or months to finally get someone's attention about the problem irl and these are precisely the types of people who will now be losing data because of the cavalier attitude from the so called experts.

That sounds awful and it's indefensible.

But it's not the subject of this article. Making this particular change sound like a problem, when it isn't (as far as I can tell), only makes it harder to understand where there are genuine issues.

Then the actual issue is that OneDrive syncs deactivated (empty) accounts to your system, deleting the offline files as well..?

I've seen all sorts of situations. The problem is that after updates OneDrive tends to turn itself on or enable syncing when it was previously disabled without telling you. Or you use a Microsoft account to install something through their store and bam suddenly the local drive is intermingled with yours. It's a mess precisely because it's built in.

No matter how many times I read it, I can't interpret it the way you're suggesting. "x soars after y" always reads as "x increases a lot because of y". I don't really get what you're saying.

Are you maybe saying that "soars" might mean "get better", so "failing grades soar" might mean there are actually less failing grades? That's not how I've ever understood that word.

"Falling" means that something goes towards the earth. "Soaring" means the opposite. "Grades soar" means that grades went up "Falling grades means that grades are going down". "Falling grades soar" is just meaningless writing.

The title is "failing grades soar" (one 'l', not two), not "falling grades soar."

Imagine an elementary school teacher told you that many of her students had failing grades, so she had implemented a new reading curriculum.

If she told you that afterwards the failing grades had "soared", it could easily be read either way:

- The (previously failing) grades had increased, so the program must be working very well.

- The percent of grades that count as failing had increased, so the program must actually be terrible.

It's not the best phrasing but it's still quite clearly the latter

Yeah, it was quite clear once I started reading the article. It just threw me for a loop as I read the title - Usually if I hear of grades "soaring" that's a _good_ thing.

Why is that relevant? Are you saying that this PDF is infected?

On top of that, who uses Adobe software to read most PDFs?

I'm saying pdfs are famous for being malware delivery devices so it's ironic (and silly imo) to distribute one with a hacking guide.

I wouldn't like to guess either way about this particular article, but it's possible many really are people. Certainly there were plenty of online commenters for news articles reacting in exactly this sort of way long before there were LLMs.

It seems very obvious to me that certain constituencies in online commenting are at all-time highs for loudness:

* police/prison/statist notions of justice * auto industry / auto-first infra * both pro- and anti-israel * pro-IP / copyright industrial complex

There are a bunch more. Maybe it's a shift in actual human sentiment, but without evidence, I don't think it makes sense for that to be the first presumption.

Fortunately, we're gonna get this here web-o-trust thing going in the next 10 years or so and not have to doubt who the humans are anymore. Riiight?

If 41% of households are actively employing a cleaner then it seems very likely that more than 50% would be happy to have their home cleaned if only they could afford it (as opposed to the commenter starting this thread, who seems to see household cleaning as a positive part of their life).

How big of a bubble do you have to be in to be thinking "I like cleaning" is the majority position among normal people?

Is it “I like cleaning”,

or “I benefit from knowing some moron didn’t come flood the cracks of my floors and wood cabinetry, creating mold”?

Yet to come across pros doing it better than me, means I don’t hire pros yet.

> Is it “I like cleaning”

Yes, that really is what was said in the original comment we're discussing.

Somehow that got defended as a (possible) majority view.