Are there any pictures around of these 8, 16, 32 socket boards? Just curious how they look like.

The individual motherboards have only four sockets: https://assets.ext.hpe.com/is/image/hpedam/s00012647?$zoom$#...

Multiple of these can be linked together with “NUMALink” cables, which carry the same protocol as the traces that go between sockets on the motherboard. You end up with a single kernel running across multiple chassis.

What war are you referring to?

The sport who's leader shoved his head so far up Trump's ass he was able to taste his orange make-up. All for the sake of giving him a farce of a "peace" prize.

(I'm talking about FIFA in case you are not aware)

IMO it's completely the other way around.

Shell scripts can be audited. The average user may not do it due to laziness and/or ignorance, but it is perfectly doable.

On the other hand, how do you make sure your LLM, a non-deterministic black box, will not misinterpret the instructions in some freak accident?

How about both worlds?

Instead of asking the agent to execute it for you, you ask the agent to write an install.sh based on the install.md?

Then you can both audit whatever you want before running or not.

So... What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md'. Because a developer can just use a LLM to generate a 'install.sh', validate that, and put it into the repo?

Good idea. That seems sensible.

Bonus: LLM is only used once, not every time anyone wants to install some software. With some risks of having to regenerate, because the output was nonsensical.

> What you are saying is that we don't need 'install.md'

I think the point was that install.md is a good way to generate an install.sh.

> validate that, and put it into the repo

The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.

> The problem being discussed is that the user of the script needs to validate it. It's great if it's validated by the author, but that's already the situation we're in.

The user is free to use a LLM to 'validate' the `install.sh` file. Just asking it if the script does anything 'bad'. That should be similarly successful as the LLM generating the script based on a description. Maybe even more successful.

I still dont understand why we need any of them. If I am installing something, It would take me more time to write this install.md or install.sh than if I just went to the correct website and copied the command, see the contents, run it and opening help.

And since LLM tokens are expensive and generation is slow, how about we cache that generated code on the server side, so people can just download the pre-generated install.sh? And since not everyone can be bothered to audit LLM code, the publisher can audit and correct it before publishing, so we're effectively caching and deduplicating the auditing work too.

This is much better. Plus you get reproducibility and can leverage the AI for more repeat performances without expending more tokens.

then how about you cut out the llm middleman and just audit the bash scripts already provided?

Why are docs behind a login wall?

Good question — we’ve taken that feedback seriously. We’re currently working on making more documentation publicly accessible without a login, so people can evaluate DevicePrint before signing up.

Hello, I am a security researcher. I found critical issues on your site. Do you have a bug bounty program.

> Don't you dare to compare SQL and CSS. SQL is not a cobbled together mess of incremental updates with 5 imperfect ways of achieving common tasks that interact in weird ways.

Reminds me a little bit of Sascha Baron Cohen's democracy speech [1] in The Dictator ;-)

Both SQL and CSS have evolved through different versions and vendor specific flavors, and have accumulated warts and different ways to do the same thing. Both feel like a superpower once you have mastered them, but painful to get anything done while learning due to the steep learning curve.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0

Were they sold with an option to have have no OEM infotainment? Just speakers and a phone mount?

I don't think it has any OEM infotainment. I think there is some kind of software in there but I've never looked at it. It's not intrusive.

Looking at image search for "2020 impreza dash" there's a screen above climate controls in all images. I was asking if there was an option to have no sceen.

Backup cameras are required by regulation since the late 2010s. You can’t sell a car with no screen.

In some countries.

Oh, I see. I don't know. I doubt it. That wasn't something I was interested in; I use navigation very often. But it's my navigation tool, not theirs.

Here's my low tech do-not-disturb device ;-)

https://i.imgur.com/rnwEGIZ.jpeg

I like to imagine you spent more effort right-sizing the wood vs installing a door knob with a lock.

I happened to have a piece of scrap wood of the right length already. Making the hole with a hand drill took maybe 2 minutes. Don't think sourcing and installing a lock mechanism would be quicker :-)

1. Turn handle down, realizing door is locked. 2. Turn handle up to unlock door. 3. Profit.

There are no iRobot models in the Valetudo supported robots list.