0x7E3

Looking up random strangers seems like a fun hobby. "Who is this person, and why is she looking me up? Is it someone I worked with? Someone I should remember? Am I such a terrible friend that I forgot about her completely?"

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, by Abelson, Sussman, and Sussman.

Also known as "The Wizard Book" or "SICP".

The full text is legally available online[1], but I found it worthwhile to buy a copy.

There are at least two really good sets of video lectures to go with it if you are so inclined. Personally I enjoyed the ones from Berkeley.

[1]: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/index.html

That's wild, I took almost the opposite message from that scene. Since the bombing run is seen as inevitable Milo engineers the situation to guarantee a minimum of actual damage is done in order to protect his profits.

I'm going to try to stick to the technical concerns this event raised, not the procedural ones.

There was a previous witness who had enhanced several videos for the prosecution. He testified that part of the enhancement process did involve "adding pixels that weren't there previously". It seems important that these videos were enhanced by a person who has a professional reputation to uphold. Those videos were admitted as evidence. The defense is positing the concern that a similar enhancement process happens when you zoom in on a video on the iPad. If it does, there is obviously no professional oversight. Keep in mind that this is a very small section of the screen that they were concerned with - a very small number of pixels of a slightly different color than there surroundings would be construed to be the object in question.

I have no idea if playback software the defense intended to use had an auto-enhance feature, but it does seem telling that the prosecuting attorney declined to certify when the judge asked that the video would not be altered. Instead he continued to make an argument of "we all do this all the time in our daily lives, it's common sense".

I do not recall him mentioning which software he intended to use for playback, so it would be hard to say for certain whether he was correct or not.

That seems a bit revisionist. To my knowledge, Donald Trump was always a vocal supporter of the Covid vaccine. Kamala Harris and Joe Biden were the ones sowing doubt about it - right up until they won the election. Harris, in particular, described Trump as irresponsible for advocating for Project Warpspeed and suggesting that people should take a Covid vaccine before it had gone through the full approval process.

I think you may be getting their personal stances confused with the partisan arguments about vaccine mandates that have evolved in the year since.

Congratulations!

Are you able to elaborate a bit on the acquisition experience beyond what is stated in the article?

> TL;DR: According to 5.5 years of data from 2.3 million players and 450 million games, most beginners will improve their rating by 100 lichess elo points in 3-6 months. Most "experienced" chess players in the 1400-1800 rating range will take 3-4 years to improve their rating by 100 lichess elo points. There's no strong evidence that playing more games makes you improve quicker.

His example for comparison was rather distasteful, but you did reinforce his point. It's name calling with the intent to insult. And while many people present valid information and construct good arguments while doing that, casually insulting your opponent, or worse uninvolved bystanders is bad manners.

You can just say 'racist', or 'person who relies on outdated ballistics information'. No need to have one derogatory term to lump the two in together and then sling in around casually.

People say that 22lr is the 'deadliest caliber' because it is the caliber that has ended the most lives in the United States, that being because it is by far the most common. The original source for that was a study done in ~1970 but there have been others to back it up since.

I'm not going to go so far as to say that _no one_ ever has said that .22lr is more lethal than any other caliber, but it is the exact opposite sentiment of "I use a .45 cause they don't make a .46" so it's not likely to be a person from that group saying it.

> Movie frames featuring sainted action heroes, gun out-thrust.

>This is the sort of thing that gives firearm owners a bad rap.

You're not wrong, but I do think it's unfair and a little odd. After all software engineers are almost exclusively depicted as engaging in unethical and outright criminal activity in pop culture, regardless of whether they are the 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. Many beginning training materials focus on things that are implied if not outright trumpeted as giving you the ability to commit illegal and immoral acts.

We certainly don't (well someone probably does, but we shouldn't) consider that as a reflection on all software engineers.

For the bullets themselves, in addition to the diameter and length you've got mass, material and shape (round nose, hollow point, ballistic tipped, etc.).

For the cartridge as a whole you're also going to be concerned with powder capacity, shape (necked?, rimmed?), and to a lesser extent material.

These are just a few examples and all are significant.