Parallels will run a VM that can (manually) boot bsd.rd from the EFI shell if you stick BOOTAA64.EFI and bsd.rd on a FAT32 GUID formatted.dmg, connect it to the VM, then boot EFI shell.
Type:
connect -r
map -r
fs0:
bootaa64.efi
boot bin.rd
Then you'll be in the OpenBSD installer, having booted an OpenBSD kernel.
Because they are getting better. They're still far from perfect/AGI/ASI, but when was the last time you saw the word "delve"? So the models are clearly changing, the question is why doesn't the data show That they're actually better?
Thing is, everyone knows the benchmarks are being gamed. Exactly how is besides the point. In practice, anecdotally, Opus 4.5 is noticably better than 4, and GPT 5.2 has also noticably improved. So maybe the real question is why do you believe this data when it seems at odds with observations by humans in the field?
> Jeff Bezos: When the data and the anecdotes disagree, the anecdotes are usually right.
"They don't use delve anymore" is not really a testament that they became better.
Most of what I can do now with them I could do half a year to a year ago. And all the mistakes and fail loops are still there, across all models.
What changed is the number of magical incantations we throw at these models in the form of "skills" and "plugins" and "tools" hoping that this will solve the issue at hand before the context window overflows.
"They dont say X as often anymore" is just a distraction, it has nothing to do with actual capability of the model.
Unfortunately, I think that the overlap between actual model improvements and what people perceive as "better" is quite small. Combine this with the fact that most people desperately want to have a strong opinion on stuff even though the factual basis is very weak.. "But I can SEE it is X now".
The type of person who outsources their thinking to their social media feed news stories and isn't intellectually curious enough to deeply explore the models themselves in order for the models to display their increase in strength, isn't going to be able to tell this themselves.
I would think this also correlates with the type of person who hasn't done enough data analysis themselves to understand all the lies and misleading half-truths "data" often tells. In the reverse also, that experience with data inoculates one to some degree against the bullshitting LLM so it is probably easier to get value from the model.
I would imagine there are all kinds of factors like this that multiple so some people are really having vastly different experiences with the models than others.
Triangulation, the math isn't the hard part. Where exactly on the continental United States are you proposing dropping ordinance? MOVE in 1985 was controversial even back then.
Doesn't seem likely, TBH. Nevermind the legal agreements they would be violating, TSMC fabs Qualcomm's Snapdragon line of ARM processors. The M1 is good, but not that good (it's a couple generations old by this point, for one). Samsung had a phone line of their own to put it in as well. TSMC does not.
Mind you, that opinion isn't universal. For programmer and programmer-adjacent technically minded individuals, sure, but there are still places where a pdf for a resume over docx is considered "weird". For those in that bubble, which ostensibly this product targets, md files are what hackers who are going to steal my data use.
All PDF security can be stripped by freely available software in ways that allow subsequent modifications without restriction, except the kind of PDF security that requires an unavailable password to decrypt to view, but in that case viewing isn’t possible either.
Subsequent modifications would of course invalidate any digital signature you’ve applied, but that only matters if the recipient cares about your digital signature remaining valid.
Put another way, there’s no such thing as a true read-only PDF if the software necessary to circumvent the other PDF security restrictions is available on the recipient’s computer and if preserving the validity of your digital signature is not considered important.
But sure, it’s very possible to distribute a PDF that’s a lot more annoying to modify than your private source format. No disagreement there.
You think a recruiter will be a forensic security researcher? Having document level digital signature is enough for 99% of use cases. Most software that a consumer would have respects the signature and prevents any modifications. Sure, you could manually edit the PDF to remove the document signature security and hope that the embedded JavaScript check doesn’t execute…
Nothing that hard. When I had a technically similar need (for non-shady purposes unrelated to recruiting) I found easy installable free GUI software for Windows that worked just fine with a simple Google search. No specialist expertise needed.
Yes, most consumer software does respect what you say. But it’s easy for a minimally motivated consumer to obtain and use software which doesn’t.
However, the context we were discussing was neither a consumer nor a forensic security researcher, but a recruiter trying to do shady things with a resume. I don't expect them to be a specialist, but I do expect them to be able either to get the kind of software I just described with a security stripping feature, or else to have access to third-party software specifically targeting the recruiter market that will do the shady things - including to digitally signed PDFs like yours - without them having to know how it works.
GP attack vector was probably recruiter editing the CV to put their company name in some place and forward it to some client. They are lazy enough to not even copy-paste the CV.
What is this measure defending against (other than getting a job)? The recruiter can still extract the information in your signed PDF, and send their own marked-up version to the client in whatever format they like. Their request for a Word document is just to make that process easier. Many large companies even mandate that recruitment agencies strip all personally-identifiable information out of candidates' resumes[1], to eliminate the possibility of bias.
1: I wish they didn't, because my Github is way more interesting than my professional experience.
reply