In fairness to the LLMs, many professionals do the same. And since it's trained on the source code of amateurs and professionals, it's not surprising when garbage in becomes garbage out.
29,526 karma · joined October 6, 2009
And people take her seriously?
2020 with COVID was far worse than something that's still literally thousands of miles from the US and we still held elections in the US. Midterm elections have already started, so even if this was some bizarre CIA plot, it'd be the least effective way to achieve their goals. They failed before they began because, again, the elections are already happening.
Gift link: https://wapo.st/4yAZVXM
A useful map that lets you hover over each county to see the effect of the three policies (current, permanent DST, no DST).
Your hypothetical is not based in reality.
(my-account 'balance)
(my-account 'withdraw 10)Flag the twits that bring it up in every thread. They're trolling at this point, not actually trying to have a conversation.
I'm curious how they came up with the name "Project Agincourt". Other than it being a fairly well-known battle, the purpose of the project doesn't really seem related to anything about that particular battle.
I'm not sure there is one, but you can start exploring here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Formal_specification_...
For TLA+-styled model checking, though, there is Quint: https://quint.sh/docs/why
Which makes a lot more sense than the submission title (in fairness, the original is too long) but it could have been made to fit without losing that key word at the end.
Well, the reason I point out LEO is that Starfish Prime was detonated at 250 miles, that's within the range of a low Earth orbit. You don't need to return anything to Earth to have the desired effect, or even have it on an Earthward trajectory (such as deorbiting the satellite).
EDIT:
> would make this only likely form a truly rogue state
I do agree with this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=linkedin.com
They're all [dead] (you'll need "showdead" on in your profile).
Of course, the harm to their own systems would be substantial as well given that it would have a huge impact on satellites in orbit, not just systems on the ground.
> It's very odd they would assume a typo in the writing but not an error in their calculations or possibly no correlation whatsoever.
They didn't assume a typo, they concluded that a typo makes the most sense if the story is true.
The facts:
- The original story (as published) claims the event occurred on 18 October 1841 on a line that didn't exist at that time (not until 1846).
- The original story was specific about the train (a 10:05 express train) and the month and day (18 October)
- On 18 October 1848 there was an express train with that time and there was a recorded geomagnetic storm
Under the assumption the story is true, given the details that do line up and the one detail that can't line up with anything, a typographical error where one number was changed makes a lot of sense.
EDIT: @khat, if you read this, it seems you've somehow become shadowbanned. Both your comment here and your earlier comment from today are [dead]. This means admin moderation or auto-moderation was involved, these weren't [flagged][dead] which would have indicated users flagged it to death. Nothing in either looks like a reason to get shadowbanned so you may want to reach out to the mods (there's a contact link at the bottom of most pages).
> Lisp, including the variants of Lisp that CL was largely derived from, did not always have lexical scoping.
Correct, but you specifically wrote about Common Lisp, thus my reply about Common Lisp, not Lisp (the historical category of languages or the older language definitions which used dynamic scoping rules).
>> No, Common Lisp was not Lexical from day one.
You were very explicit about the language version you were speaking about, as was I in my reply.
Read the usernames, "Jtsummers" and "iLemming" don't even look alike.
If only the world worked this way. Until something happens, a lot of potential problems remain potential problems rather than getting remedied. Especially when it'll be expensive to fix.
The first edition of Common Lisp the Language defined the language as having lexical scope, with the option to create special variables with dynamic scope (so it had both). Unless you're referring to some earlier draft specification, it's hard to reconcile your assertion with the history of the language.
From page 39:
> - Variable bindings normally have lexical scope and indefinite extent.
> - Variable bindings that are declared to be special have dynamic scope (indefinite scope and dynamic extent).
(split-sequence:split-sequence #\Space line)
(split-string "a b c")