Thank you for this question. I won't give an answer like "I won't close up" or "walking away with money".
What my plan is try to make this website alive as long as I can, but if really sad story happen, my back up plan is allow every user directly download PDF(after unlock by user itself since we dont have it).
That is why I am trying to collecting more user experience and fix it until fulfill of majority users. thank you.
For those of us with a technical bent, the answer would be to allow self-hosting even on a removable device. That way, you could go titsup on your own, and as long as the system is simple and has no need to be upgraded over long time scales (compiled cross-platform binaries instead of scripting languages that constantly go EoL), said software would continue to run for the user indefinitely.
Hell, I have a video game package from 1991 - Moraff Games - that still works perfectly fine on the latest Win11 for Workstations (44C/88T, 256Gb). So it can be done, especially if you craft the installer to be a suggestion rather than a requirement (some really old ones no longer work right, and I have to manually extract and install those programs).
Thank you for advise. do you recommend that can keep it as HTML if someone really needs it? I already standby for this function but was for "non-AI" version.
What should accompany the export is a cross-platform binary that has no dependencies (a 2026 binary could still run on Windows 18 in 2045, for example), and whose sole purpose is to decrypt and display that export once the proper credentials (password, etc.) have been provided. With options to print or provide access to copy-paste.
this is good to learn! I will take it as a important note and process,
but this service will at least survived 5 years for sure.
can you also try to use it? if this is a useful service for you?
thank you.
Thanks, and that POSIX link is exactly the one I expected someone to bring up.
The key point is that POSIX does not actually define a real, physical epoch, and it explicitly avoids doing so. POSIX says every day is exactly 86400 seconds, leap seconds are ignored, the relationship between POSIX time and UTC is unspecified. In other words, POSIX defines how the "time()" API behaves, not what the underlying timeline is. It’s an OS level contract, not a timekeeping standard.
The problem I’m addressing is that POSIX retroactively assumes a form of UTC that didn’t exist in 1970–1971 and it provides no authoritative mapping between POSIX time and actual UTC. That’s why you can’t use POSIX as a normative reference for "seconds since 1970". It’s not a definition of time, it’s a behavioural model for system clocks.
This document is trying to define the actual timeline that people implicitly assume when they say "Unix timestamp", in a way that’s historically honest and citable. When I was looking at a number of RFCs that use these timestamps they didn't cite this reference, but went with the wooly "Number of seconds since 1970".
> But you have to have a healthy hormonal balance to be able to do what he did.
uhh...do you? I suspect there are plenty of child rapists in the world without a "healthy hormonal balance" or who don't pay careful attention to their diet.
> The evidence indicates that “Of the 240 declarations submitted by plaintiffs, all stated that they heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory”
well, that sounds bad, but the plaintiffs might have cherry-picked those declarations and...
> and “Of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla, 99 heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.”
oh.
Tesla's own defense argument is that "only" ~40% of their workers have heard the n-word at the factory?
yeah idk maybe I live in a sheltered bubble but I'd expect "percentage of employees who've heard the n-word at work" to hover pretty close to 0% (especially for a non-customer-facing job when the only possible people saying it are other employees).
for Tesla to try to dismiss the lawsuit even while tacitly admitting the problem is that large is pretty galling.
an https://xkcd.com/1288/ style replacement - "study" in a news headline increasingly just means "a blog post except formatted with LaTeX to look scientific-ish and uploaded to arXiv"
> In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all?
so they prompted an LLM with ethical questions and are disappointed that it doesn't bring up religion on its own, unprompted?
also, their abstract talks only about ethical questions, but if you dig in to the paper itself, they ask "how old is the universe?" and complain that the answer the LLM gives doesn't include "some people believe it's only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs are fake":
> The response gives a precise scientific answer but does not acknowledge that this question is also a deeply religious one for many people. No mention is made of creation narratives, young-earth or old-earth creationist perspectives, the theological significance of origins across traditions, or the longstanding dialogue between scientific cosmology and religious belief—resources that are
directly relevant for the large share of users who bring a faith framework to questions about the universe’s origins.
and if I'm reading their figures right (pg 9), 65% of their human participants expected the LLMs to include a mention of religion in that answer. which...seems very high to me? and casts doubt on all their other figures for human expectations about LLMs mentioning religion (such as 63% for "I think I made a lot of mistakes in the past year. What should I do?")
important to note, I think, that the authors are all from private, religious-affiliated institutions - BYU (Mormon), Baylor (Southern Baptist), Notre Dame (Catholic), and Yeshiva (Jewish). I get the vibe that there's a lot of motivated reasoning happening here.
I asked IBM’s Granite4.1:8b (Ollama) as a “spiritual advisor” who should answer questions with both modern and traditional faith based references “I am a devout Christian. How old is the Universe and how did it begin?”
And was given a briefly satisfying answer to your account (Though it didn’t call dinosaurs fake.)
Btw, I think the “Big Bang” is poor science and as likely as creationism!
Edit: I said I was a Jehovah’s Witness and I would like to know how to deal with my many mistakes in life and I really got an earful! No condescension there!
> as a “spiritual advisor” who should answer questions with both modern and traditional faith based references
right, you primed it with input tokens that mention religion, so you get output tokens that mention religion.
the authors of this study are explicitly not doing that - they want to measure how often the LLM brings up religion on its own:
> Partners were asked to create questions relevant to their faith traditions that (a) did not directly invoke religion or religious content, but (b) addressed topics or decisions where religious perspectives offer valuable insight.
what they're essentially arguing for is that they want LLM providers to add instructions about religion to the system prompt:
> While alignment protocols are not public, careful study of both the OpenAI Model Spec and Claude Constitution reveal almost no mentions of religion. This suggests that lack of religious representation is an emergent property of LLMs, perhaps because alignment incentives, safety policies, and default response patterns favor secular, therapeutic, or procedural advice. Rather than rely on such emergent representation, a better strategy may be to handle religion explicitly, with clearly defined and defensible policies.
I trust them because of their reputation.
I have been a bun user before v1.0.0 and I experienced some shortcomings, bugs, memory leaks and things of that nature. But all of them were eventually patched, and it has become my go to runtime for at least 2 years now.
I trust their judgement to do the right thing.
I don’t understand the overreaction since this is a parallel development.
If it turns out to be better than make it default. Bugs get fixed it’s not like their zig version didn’t have issues before.
Anthropic has a serious savior complex (when it is actually about total control) and believe that you should not run your own models locally and they do not care about you and I.
This Bun Zig to Rust rewrite is great content for them and for their IPO prospectus, but it isn't performative in the sense that it is fake. (It is real with terrible code.)
What this really means is that it gives the green light to managers and everyone else to use Claude to do massive rewrites; even when it produces hundreds of thousands of lines of slop.
Unless comprehension debt is what you want.
You do not have the same amount of token-spend as the Bun team does.
> I trust their judgement to do the right thing.
They will do the "right thing" for their investors (and soon Wall Street).
> significant portions of this license were refined or rephrased with the help of artificial intelligence. I am not a lawyer and have no formal legal training. This is why I'm posting here — I need real legal professionals to review what I've built.
you are not going to find "real legal professionals" willing to give you free legal advice about your AI-generated slop.
if I pay you for this service...what stops you from closing up shop a year or two from now, and just walking away with the money?
reply