There is a well-known CLI tool for JSON processing called jq.
I have just asked GLM-4.7 for the name of jq's built function to convert a string to lowercase. It is called ascii_downcase() according to the manual:
However GLM-4.7 insists that is called ascii_down().
I tried to correct it and gave the exact version number, but still, after a long internal monologue, This is its final world:
"In standard jq version 1.7, the function is named ascii_down, not ascii_downcase.
If you are receiving an error that ascii_down is not defined, please verify your version with jq --version. It is possible you are using a different binary (like gojq) or a version older than 1."
GLM-5 gives me the correct answer, ascii_downcase, but I can get this in the Chat Window. Via the API I get HTTP Status 429 - too many requests.
Seems that I cannot use GLM-5 via the API yet, because I am on the Coding-Lite Plan, the most basic paid tier.
I have also realized that I get faster and correct answer to the ascii_downcase question (even from GLM-4.7) when I submit to open.bigmodel.cn endpoint rather than the z.ai API endpoints (using the same API key). I get a mix of Chinese and Western characters in error responses from open.bigmodel.cn though, while the z.ai endpoint does only contain Western Characters.
(Just assuming that both websites are operated by the same company).
From their email titled ”GLM-5 and New Z.ai Chat Coming!”
> Availability Note: GLM-5 is currently available exclusively on Max and Pro Coding Plan users. We are working to scale our infrastructure and will roll this out to Lite users as soon as capacity permits.
How many Microsoft employees are working on Azure Linux in 2026 (full-time equivalents)?
Github Project Page lists ~ 195 contributors today.
Is Azure Linux relying on community contributions, and MS employees do not write code, justt review, plan, coordinate?
Or is it the other way around, Microsoft developers do most of the work, and occasionally accept a small PR and interesting feature requests from the community, here and there?
Q: There is not a single occurrence of the word "infer" (and related terms such as "inference") in the whole paper. Did you carefully try to avoid it or did this happen accidentally? Or is it the point of your paper?
(I encounter Type Checking only in my IDE when red squiggly lines appear under syntax errors etc. So consider this a layman Q)
Very good question! Funnily enough, it was indeed a conscious decision to avoid mentioning "inference", because then people might expect that we're doing polymorphism with type variables/or maybe that we're deriving a Hindley-Milner inference system.
We're not doing these things, so we figured it would be safer this way, but absolutely you could call what we're doing "type inference".
That being said, we've got some ideas for a follow-up paper to revisit this and derive something more worthy of being called "inference".
The more complicated a type system is, the harder it is to make inference work.
Global type inference typically works well in Haskell without any hand-holding, but when you pack more features into the type system (e.g. in Idris), the programmer needs to explicitly write out more type signatures.
This type system looks "next-level complicated", so inference is probably way out of the question, e.g. if you saw the expression 2 + 3, maybe the types are:
If you were type-checking, you could start on the RHS, end up with the LHS, and then confirm that these two sub-expressions can be added. But with inference you're trying to figure out the most appropriate RHS from the LHS.
Long-term memory (LTM) consolidation is thought to require the prior establishment of short-term memory (STM). -- Authors show that it does not have to be this way.
I think, in Germany, only small companies (sole proprietorship businesses) will see your diverse skillset as an advantage.
Or one of those companies who are really desperate to hire someone for whatever reason. Perhaps you can _take over_ such a business (search for "Nachfolger gesucht unternehmen")
It is not clear what your problem is. Has the freelancing side-business dried up, or is the "main day job" gone, or both?
Currently it only outputs PDF, PNG and SVG. The next release will have preliminary support for HTML. This will be a structured output so from there it will be easier to support other formats either directly or in post-processing e.g. through pandoc. Pandoc itself supports Typst input but I'm not sure how reliable that is.
Don’t know either, but some things are unrepresentable in the pandoc internal format. It can internally represent an intersection of all its supported formats.
Read the article - This is not the EU commission or some bigwig requesting a hearing or an investigation.
Rather there was one delegate from one of the many political groups in the EU Parliament (which has very little authority and power) who made a statement .
In analogy to the US political system: This is not Mark Zuckerberg summoned to a Senate hearing. Rather this is someone of the House of Representatives making some weird proposal or claim.
Maybe I am oversimplifying here, but you get the idea.
The way I see it, it's a parliamentary member from France from the Renew group in the EU parliament who is not happy with the results and thinks that the democracy needs to be saved because the results do not align with their expectations.
The decent thing to do would be to take this vote into account and accept that not everyone wants the same thing.
Yes, it does. It matters very much. The difference between a governmental body ordering you to do something and a single employee making one comment is tremendous. Maybe the latter can lead to the former, maybe, but they’re very far from being the same thing.
ok, let's follow your logic there to the very end.
Your argument is that we should not pay attention because whoever the MP who made this comments is, she is not part of the EU commission and she is not a big wig as you put it. So we could assume that whatever she says does not carry much weight.
But the website reporting this news does not agree with you here, otherwise, why report it in the first place? To them, it matters and it is important because she is part of the Renew group. The Renew group is staunchly opposed to the far-right and pro NATO and pro Ukraine, that is to say the complete opposite to this Romanian candidate.
Furthermore, the MP in question is a close ally of the French president which means she could have the means to convince other MPs to join her and maybe get some support from Macron to jump start some kind of investigation into this matter.
Macron is/was the de facto leading figure in Europe (before becoming a lame duck in the last election) and his words still carry a lot of weight at the EU level.
If she was a random MP in a small fringe party on the sidelines of the EU parliament, I would have agreed with you but not in this case.
Maybe you are right and nothing will come out of it but to me this is not nothing and it should not be dismissed as easily as you think.
> Your argument is that we should not pay attention because whoever the MP who made this comments is, she is not part of the EU commission and she is not a big wig as you put it.
No, that was not my argument at all. I didn’t call anyone a bigwig. You’re not replying to the same person and are starting from an entirely false and incorrect premise, thus reaching a wrong conclusion.
I don’t think this should be dismissed, nor have I claimed it. My sole point is that the difference as it exists is meaningful. One is a certainty, the other is a possibility. Possibilities may be avoided, with different degrees of probability.
No, Macron lost his credibility and influence in the last elections, and by refusing to let his opponents try to form a coalition first (wether or not it would have succeeded is irrelevant here.), he is sometimes viewed as an anti-parliementarist by some of his allies. Being part of renew and batting for 'democracy' is quite ironic,and my guess is that she'll be ignored.
It matters in the sense that the title makes this sound much bigger than it actually is. Every parliament has a spectrum of members, some of them being relatively edgy/extreme in what they say. And most of the time what they say doesn't have any later consequences - apart from, I guess, affirming their voter base - which is why they are there in the first place.
To bid for lucrative defense contracts (and who knows what else from which organizations and governments).
Also, competitors are much less constrained by safety constraints, and slowly grabbing market share from them.
As mentioned by others: Enormous amounts of investor money at stake, pressure to generate revenue.
Next up: they will replace "safe" with "lethal" or "lethality" to be in sync with the current US administration.