If there really is a need for having one executable that comprises multiple commands, is `busybox whoami` instead of `whoami` so much more effort? To me, that would make more sense in terms of what is going on; aliases could be used if one-word commands are preferred. In most non busybox contexts, argv[0] is just an unnecessary addition that, as the linked article shows, can introduce weirdness.

It's clear from the comments there are still many who think argv[0] is a good thing, which is great - I'm glad the post sparked this debate.

It's not the "more effort" that is the deal breaker here. It is a matter of compliance with specs and user expectations. What you're suggesting would make Busybox very non-POSIXy, very non-Unixy. All scripts written over the last many decades would need to be updated to call `busybox ls` instead of `ls`? How is that a viable solution?

> I'm glad the post sparked this debate.

This is a very strange way to deflect concerns about quality of the article!

(a) the hypothetical non-argv0 busybox being discussed, and

(b) a POSIX shell of the maintainer's choice, with built-in aliases for 'ls=busybox ls'

be sufficient to make the system POSIX complaint?

That's indeed why I personally don't use shell aliases at all, instead opting for actual shell scripts in my $PATH. Those will work no matter what shell I'm using (if any).

Shell aliases don't solve all problems, even if you do:

    alias rm="busybox rm"
    alias xargs="busybox xargs"
    # etc.

But the main problem with this approach is that POSIX and LSB require certain binaries to be available at certain paths. When they're not, most shell scripts will just break.

The minimal standard solution is probably to create shell scripts for all of these, e.g. in /bin/ls:

    #!/bin/sh
    exec /bin/busybox ls

    #!/bin/busybox sh
    exec /bin/busybox ls

?

Actually this observation invalidates the whole setup. Because even though you could define /bin/sh itself as:

    #!/bin/busybox sh
    exec /bin/busybox sh

I really don’t think it is a debate. The usage of arg[0] is massively understated by the article. Just go look at gcc or any modern day compiler. Its use so much that the conversion of should we has been hashes out by many different groups yet they still chose to implement it.

The security concerns are a non issue. As arg[0] was not the problem. It was the lack of technical knowledge of how systems work and a flaw in the security application.

Bash has an sh compatibility mode that runs when you invoke it as sh.

What you do? Replace every single occurrence of each command by prefixing it `busybox`? Not ideal at all...

You appear not to realize that busybox is an essential component of a POSIX like system.

> We study vocabulary changes in 14 million PubMed abstracts from 2010–2024, and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words.

1: https://arxiv.org/html/2406.07016v1

Since there isn't a single English (English learners generally get informed about the choice of UK vs US English only, but most English is spoken outside of UK and USA in other places and other dialects), but multiple different Englishes, any English speaker will probably find something to be surprised by, and there is an economic incentive to get data from people other than the relatively expensive native speakers of UK or USA English.

It was submitted as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40623629

Again, there is effectively zero real data showing this. Further, RLHF isn't likely to reinforce such word selection regardless.

A more logical, likely scenario is that training data is biased heavily towards higher grade level material, so word selection veers towards writings that you find in those realms.

Exploitation like that is in fact happening (see pretty much everything having to do with social media content moderation and RLHF to avoid disturbing content.

Also "paying to do a job" is not the moral panacea you seem to think it is.

typical people prefer to pretend this is simply "order" and "progress"; seemingly blind to their own ideological baggage like fish in water

Have a look at BBC translation to get a taste, and tell me its not hoax: https://www.bbc.com/pidgin

On another note, while the paper itself is pretty cool, in discussions on it I thought people where kind of looking down on using LLM's to help you write. There's a philistine moat in many fields around writing style. While writing well is in my experience correlated with paper quality, it is not predicated by it. And introducing tools that help people write more readable papers is probably a net benefit overall.

What made LLMs suddenly interesting was that the responses were much more like answers and much less like additional questions in the same vein as the prompt.

I had a bot which used the original GPT3 (i.e. the completion model, not the chat model) and its answers were pretty decent (with the right prompting). Often even better than GPT3.5, whose answers were overly formulaic in comparison ("as an AI language model...", "it's important to ..." all the time)

If it can be overcome in existing models, it’s probably going to involve different aspects including vocabulary, style, and organization.

  import antigravity

  Welcome to PyPy.js!
  >>> from __future__ import braces
    File "<console>", line 1
  SyntaxError: not a chance
  >>>

1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7469#section-2.1.4

2: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Secure_Headers_Project...

This would explain why some more recent cryptocurrencies such as Zcash (ZEC) are missing.

    Is this a joke?

    Of course it's a joke. Use semantic CSS class names.

  styleElement.appendChild(document.createTextNode(styleContent.replace(/;/g, ' !important;')));

"LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text, made more typesetting, grammatical, and formatting errors"

Notice of Republication

This article was republished on March 30, 2015, to correct the sizing and placement of the figures; none of the article content was changed. The publisher apologizes for the original layout errors. Please download this article again to view the corrected version. The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected article are provided here for reference.

Agh, I keep on making the mistake of doing homework directly to LaTeX. It seems that you're able to think directly from the page but it ultimately slows you down. I know way too much about mathematical typesetting as it is -- before I start making up rules about how Expectation should be \mathsf{E} and writing huge custom command files.

This one exam I started doing all the exercises in the book into LaTeX. As an aspiring mathematician, I need to learn to better appreciate pencil and paper.