I find this shocking:
Uncategorized
64
Posts
30
Posters
0
Views
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird I assume the person who deleted the footage also killed him or is covering him. It's the same thing I assume when cops body or car cams aren't working in other circumstances .. maybe billionaires aren't as different as the rest of us all the time.
-
@futurebird so, uh
That reads like "one drive in a raid set failed" - as in, one of the drives that things are simultaneously recorded to". In that scenario, "installing new hard drives" means the system reboots and formats the new drives, which absolutely makes sense.... kinda?
It doesn't explain what happened to the other drives.
@futurebird If it's this:
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00127400.pdf
.... that sure looks like it was recoverable data. You can usually lose several disks in a RAID array before losing data, that's the whole point.
-
The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.
For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.
Someone must know something.
The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.
The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.
Look at this sketchy article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59839724
Come on. Come on man.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird there are so many things wrong with this whole thing it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things we should be mad about
-
What they published was the only camera that was working and that survived this little data purge I think?
And it just so happens to be an angle where you can't see the door and can't prove that no one went to that cell.
OK. Cool. This is fine.
Okay, I can see that much. 🤔
I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?
I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.
And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.
Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.
So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation? 🤔
-
@futurebird so, uh
That reads like "one drive in a raid set failed" - as in, one of the drives that things are simultaneously recorded to". In that scenario, "installing new hard drives" means the system reboots and formats the new drives, which absolutely makes sense.... kinda?
It doesn't explain what happened to the other drives.
@mhoye
Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
@futurebird -
@futurebird there are so many things wrong with this whole thing it is kind of hard to keep track of all the things we should be mad about
-
The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.
The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.
Look at this sketchy article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59839724
Come on. Come on man.
@futurebird yeah. yeah.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird To me this reads less like "he knew there would be something on there" and more like "didn't care or wanted to remove anything without really checking."
I'm of the mind that no actual literal assassination took place, but that the people involved were fans of Trump and choosing to take someone who was in a position to be suicidal (and had already shown such tendencies) off of suicide watch was kind of just sort of *hoping* that the inevitable would happen.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird It's a bit confusing. It seems the system was badly maintained and failing for some time before Epstein's death,
and that repairing it would destroy the saved footage. But it's not clear from this what was on it before the repair and if they copied it out first.
I remember a Coffeezila video showing the limited video angle from outside of the cell, and that there were 2 minutes missing. -
Okay, I can see that much. 🤔
I still don't understand why a hard drive has to be erased to replace it?
I don't have much experience with surveillances systems, per se, but I've replaced a LOT of hard drives over the years.
And this was never a thing -- except that you'd erase a drive with secure info to dispose of it. Is that what they meant? Because it seems like, particularly after the incident, you'd hang onto that data.
Unless you were intentionally destroying evidence, of course.
So was this document essentially a lie to try to make an intentional deletion look like some kind of technical limitation? 🤔
@TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"
-
@TerryHancock @futurebird or [redacted] didnt understand it or explained it wrong. Of course if you replace the HD the files would no longer be in the system, and so appear to be "deleted"
This makes more sense.
The system might have a way to browse files from drives that were plugged in. "Pull" the drive and it's "gone"
It's not clear where the "pulled" drive went.
-
@mhoye
Uh. I never actually used _raid_ raids, but uhh why should it wipe instead of resilver?
@futurebird@nobody @mhoye @futurebird Maybe if there wasn't enough data to rebuild? Like if it's a three drive array, you could lose one and rebuild the data, but lose two out of three and there's no way to recover that (assuming it's not RAID1). You might still be able to use forensic tools to recover some partial data but not complete files so the DVR would just wipe it out and start over.
RAID3 or RAID5 would work that way I think...wiki also says RAID3 is "suitable for applications that demand the highest transfer rates in long sequential reads and writes, for example uncompressed video editing." And RAID5 "requires that all drives but one be present to operate." So that seems to fit.
Although that would require one of those two bad drives to have failed after the incident for it to have actually recorded anything during it. And it says only one drive was working at the time of the incident. So it might not have had any useful data for that anyway.
-
The more I look into the MCC the more I'm convinced that this incident makes no sense.
For guards it's kind of a sought after place to work since there is a high ratio of guards to inmates and it had a reputation for being a safer and less chaotic place to work.
Someone must know something.
@futurebird @goaty someone also probably got a lot of money to keep their mouth shut with the insurance of a death threat. til trump dies they wont come forward.
-
I find this shocking:
In the recent file release we have new documents that show that the prison footage of Epstein's cell was deleted by an FBI agent who was advised (or someone was advised) that this action would delete the footage.
...
OK. Sure. Great. Wonderful. Makes total sense.
This has not gotten much traction and it's making me feel a little like a crazy person.
Is anyone going to ask why the FBI deleted this footage?
@futurebird Pretty sure we did at the time and it was simply glossed over unsatisfactorily. 🤷🏻♀️
Real conspiracies are almost always in the favor of the rich and powerful, whereas conspiracy "theories" involve machinations of someone marginalized or powerless.
I don't find it at all far-fetched that a witness against scores and scores of the most rich and powerful people in the world, would be eliminated by them.
-
"A sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
-
The detail about the guards not doing their checks that night (but this wasn't a pattern for these guards (!) this is a good job as far as working in corrections goes why mess it up?? ) That detail wild to me and makes no sense.
The guards got in a little trouble for failing to do these checks. But then? Those charges are DROPPED.
Look at this sketchy article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59839724
Come on. Come on man.
Mark Epstein could have his brother’s body exhumed at ANY TIME and have the same independent medical examiner he had observing the autopsy do another examination of the body.
But all Mark wants to do is stoke conspiracy fires.
-
@futurebird Pretty sure we did at the time and it was simply glossed over unsatisfactorily. 🤷🏻♀️
Real conspiracies are almost always in the favor of the rich and powerful, whereas conspiracy "theories" involve machinations of someone marginalized or powerless.
I don't find it at all far-fetched that a witness against scores and scores of the most rich and powerful people in the world, would be eliminated by them.
I just mean "conspiracy" in the sense that there is a group of people who know the truth and they have covered it up from the general public on a very large and public matter.
Even if it was "just" a case of "letting" him do it himself. That's still a huge miscarriage of justice.
The fact that he made that strange phone call to "his mom" (his mom is dead) the night before makes this seem possible ... who did he call?
A prison doesn't have phone records???
-
@futurebird I assume the person who deleted the footage also killed him or is covering him. It's the same thing I assume when cops body or car cams aren't working in other circumstances .. maybe billionaires aren't as different as the rest of us all the time.
@thesquirrelfish @futurebird Definitely the party of "accidental" gross negligence / reckless disregard.
-
@nobody @mhoye @futurebird Maybe if there wasn't enough data to rebuild? Like if it's a three drive array, you could lose one and rebuild the data, but lose two out of three and there's no way to recover that (assuming it's not RAID1). You might still be able to use forensic tools to recover some partial data but not complete files so the DVR would just wipe it out and start over.
RAID3 or RAID5 would work that way I think...wiki also says RAID3 is "suitable for applications that demand the highest transfer rates in long sequential reads and writes, for example uncompressed video editing." And RAID5 "requires that all drives but one be present to operate." So that seems to fit.
Although that would require one of those two bad drives to have failed after the incident for it to have actually recorded anything during it. And it says only one drive was working at the time of the incident. So it might not have had any useful data for that anyway.
@admin @nobody @futurebird this was a 16 drive machine…..
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
....e la scheda mamma è fissata...
adesso vediamo per l'alimentatore
-
Veramente un buon articolo divulgativo sul funzionamento interno dei #LLM.
Code is Data <=> Data is CodeL'unico errore informatico, purtroppo molto comune, è questo passaggio relativo al modello:Lo apro dal terminale con xxd, lo stesso approccio che userei per qualsiasi binario. Non è codice eseguibile, è un formato dati.
In realtà, sia a livello teorico che pratico, ogni dato è codice eseguibile per almeno una macchina di #Turing. Quello che viene pomposamente definito "motore inferenziale" (nel caso specifico, LLama.cpp eseguito tramite #Ollama) non è altro che una macchina virtuale programmabile statisticamente che esegue un software espresso in forma matriciale, ovvero il modello.
Tale macchina virtuale non fa altro che mappare meccanicamente (e iterativamente) un punto su spazio vettoriale multidimensionale (descritto dagli embedding dei token del prompt) in un punto di uno spazio vettoriale più piccolo (descritto dall'embedding del token più plausibile in output).
D'altro canto, anche l'autore intuisce che si tratta di un software eseguito da una macchina virtuale a sua volta eseguita sul suo computer quando scrivePer fare un esempio concreto, ho chiesto a Llama 3.1 (8B, quello che gira sul mio Mac con Ollama)".
Esatto il modello "gira". Viene eseguito.
Perché è un software codificato in una matrice per una architettura custom (non x86_64 o ARMv8, ma llama.cpp).
E il sorgente di quel software sono i testi utilizzati durante il processo di compilazione (impropriamente detto "training").
Né probabilità né "predizioni"Anche parlare di "distribuzione di probabilità", a valle dei vari passaggi di "normalizzazione" è matematicamente errato: non si tratta di una distribuzione di probabilità, perché se andassimo a misurare nei testi utilizzati come sorgente per la compilazione del modello la frequenza in cui al prompt segue il nuovo token, nella maggioranza dei prompt non troveremmo alcun caso.
Anche questo errore, purtroppo, è dannatamente diffuso.
E' però funzionale a supportare il framework interpretativo del cosiddetto "algoritmo predittivo", mentre un LLM non predice alcunché: non c'è infatti alcun fenomeno esterno al calcolo con cui confrontare la correttezza della previsione. Per questo è tecnicamente insensato parlare di allucinazioni (oltre ad essere allucinante di per sé, perché proietta un'esperienza umana con conseguenze sociali che generano compassione, sul calcolo effettuato da una macchina).
Errori di calcolo... e interpretativiVi è poi una lacuna nel ragionamento che invalida le conclusioni (più precisamente la sezione 10, sul "perché funzionano"): la natura iterativa del processo di calcolo, secondo cui ogni token in output viene integrato nella sequenza di input (il prompt) e utilizzato per calcolare il token successivo, unito alla natura probabilistica del calcolo, determina un costante accumulo degli errori.
Le mitigazioni proposte, come l'uso di contenuti aggiuntivi nel RAG o, nel caso di agenti, la possibilità di integrare nell'input l'output di altri tool, non fa altro che aumentare la percentuale "grounded" del contesto (prompt "grounded" + documenti RAG "grounded" + output precedente del LLM "ungrounded" + output dei tool deterministici "grounded") durante il calcolo del prossimo token plausibile (non probabile).
Per intenderci, quando l'autore parla del sistema di agenti del suo Parrhesepstein scriveIl fact-checker automatico produce un punteggio: verde sopra l'80%, giallo sopra il 50%, rosso sotto. Così sai quanto fidarti.
è vittima di un'allucinazione: ciascun agente produce un output ottimizzato per essere plausibile quando interpretato dall'uomo, ma prescinde completamente dalla comprensione dei testi in input.
Dunque il fatto che il fact-checker dica 97% non implica che l'output dell'agente sia corretto al 97% o che abbia una probabilità del 97%, ma solo che un essere umano troverebbe plausibile quel numero come proseguimento del testo fornitogli in input.
In altri termini, non "sai quando fidarti", ma "è plausibile che leggendo quel numero tu ti fida della sua correttezza (non necessariamente della correttezza di tutto il resto)".
In altri termini, proprio a causa della sua architettura, non puoi mai fidarti dell'output di un LLM.
Strumenti "nuovi"Infine l'autore scrive:Un LLM con ... è uno strumento che non esisteva cinque anni fa.
Formalmente ha ragione.
La differenza non è nel modello, è in come lo usi.
Un LLM è uno strumento che non esisteva cinque anni fa. Ed è vero che può essere usato ogni qual volta non è necessario che un testo abbia significato, ma deve apparire plausibile quando interpretato da un essere umano.
Il problema è che può essere usato solo per quello.
SOLO se il suo output può non avere alcun significato.
In pratica, è un generatore di Lorem ipsum a tema.
CC: @informapirata@mastodon.uno
-
Tense moments in cat box olympics. The NH contingent made his move into the 6"x8" category, but seemed to hit a wave of self doubt after sticking the landing. We thought it was all over as he faced down the 3"x3' mega mini challenge, but the judges seem impressed with his flying horizontal flattening feline technique.
#CatsOfMastodon
-
-
@Steve12L pour mois avec saucisse au piment. Merci.
-
Idea di motto per il Fediverso: "boostarne uno per raggiungerne cento".
-
@lgsp ha fatto notare che la cabinovia per accedere alle piste non è stata completata e che ci sono parecchi posti vuoti nelle tribune.
-
La pâte à pizza est prête.
Recette ici : ⤵️
