I don't think it's real though, it's a covert call to action via reverse psychology: "everything is really really bad, it's almost hopeless and past time so... [do something about it]"
By IDE search do you mean that it was using glean even in your local vscode? Does glean therefore work in combination with LSPs, because scip says that code modifications are a non-goal and now I wonder why somebody would create such a big tool only for local code to still just use LSPs and never use the server version of code navigation (scip or glean).
People aren't going to buy little usb sticks, some phones don't even have usb ports and the NFC or bluetooth connection never works properly. Also generally even having multiple devices isn't going to save you when you really need saving. Like in a house fire or while on vacation and your phone breaks, who really keeps a second phone around constantly with all the passkeys on it, like e.g in your hotel room? Then what if someone breaks in and steals your backup phone, now you have to invalidate all those passkeys somehow right?
I also don't know whether there is even any recovery process planned or possible, I guess not? So why on earth would I pick a new system like passkeys where I can't just have Google email me a new password vs. a system where that is impossible? Effectively my email account is like a second device in the password system which is far easier to carry around than a physical device. Sure a second, different email account could get itself password guessed but the chances of that are so small, it's pointless to think about and even if it does get hacked, even then it probably wont matter because it will only get used during recovery processes for a few seconds.
It also still doesn't answer the question around how I would know whether the passkey I created on a different device will work. One time a login process on Windows told me to use a QR scanner via my phone and then I got logged in. Okay so did that create a new passkey now and where? Both devices were involved in the login process, it was unclear to me. Maybe it was also the registration process, they are so similar now that I can't remember.
I guess maybe half the problem is that the proposition seems so strange: We are being told that all of a sudden having multiple "passwords" for the same account is actually great, it's secure. In fact: Just have a new password for the same account on every device, you can just keep creating new passkeys and it's no problem at all?! Oh and btw, if you lose any one of those your entire account is utterly compromised and good luck figuring out which of those passkeys you have to invalidate now. Somehow this is okay and secure.
All you said is that it worked for you, you even emphasize that your usecase was different because you have several devices. This doesn't relate to my question.
But don't you also get into that account via your passkey? How do you know that the passkey you are using to get into the Google/Apple account isn't the same one that will be lost if you lose your phone? I've actually implemented passkeys on my website and I still don't use passkeys for e.g my own Google account because I don't trust it.
I think people are just fundamentally not willing to attribute intelligence to things that can't have conversations. This is why the incredible belief was possible that babies or dogs don't feel pain. Once the AI is given some long term memory all of these ideas that AI is just a parrot will suddenly be gone and I personally think that it will probably be pretty easy to give robots memories and their own personal motivations. All you have to achieve is to train them in realtime and the rest is an optimization, you want the training to make sense and have it not store/believe every single thing that it is being told etc.
That's like saying that your brain doesn't understand anything, it just analyzes the visual data coming in via your eyes and predicts the next step of reality
these donations will do nothing to change Trump's mind anyway, this is happening because these tech CEOs think that Trump is a vain baffoon that can be swayed by gifts and sweet words. I'm sure to some degree it's true for anybody but Trump has often spoken out against ppl who try this on him. I still remember him talking about his dinner with Romney where he laughed about this kind of a behavior.
You probably mean parents who went on live television to give interviews? Well obviously he can show "pictures" of people who were on TV with their name.
>But is there any shred of doubt that no one, including the greediest most-souless bureaucrat, actually tried to make an airplane crash and kill people?
This is not taking into account how humans are. People raise their children really badly all the time even though they know what they are doing is bad but they just don't care in the moment. Who wants a bad child? But they still make all the mistakes and end up producing bad children. Incompetence and malice are often nearly identical.
This is misrepresentation, they didn't just happen to make a mistake in a complex situation. The crime was to know about the mistake and still not fix it - on purpose. The crime was to know that they should be giving people training on this system for safety reasons but they didn't anyway. Afaik it is an additional misrepresentation that the same system is now continuing on to fly. It is not, they fixed it and patched it.
I watched some of his videos at the time and to me it seemed mostly like the exact same content that he always does. Very much not brazen claims of facts, just musing and speculating that it's all fake and the parents are smiling so they might be actors. That's it. And the entire time he was emphasizing that he doesn't know for sure and it's all theory.
it's part of being honest and citing your possibly unreliable source, you should be very glad about people who do this. The real problem is that he didn't post any actual information in his comment.
The judges could give them such large fines to force them into bankrupcy. Alex Jones was fined 1.1 billion dollars. How much should Boeing be fined for causing actual deaths?
Can you see the problem though: If you need a huge page dedicated to explaining the difference between how-tos and tutorials then it's clearly too confusing and not obvious at all. Nobody is going to need a page telling them the difference between sample code and documentation. Those two words are obvious even though yes, sample code is of course also documentation in a sense.
Your videogame example shows the problem. Tutorials are effectively just a different form of walkthrough. You are getting walked through the basics. So that's my point, you can't have different words on your website that is supposed to help people gain understanding and then start off by confusing everyone with words that are all so close in meaning.
But I want to learn something in all of those examples. I have a goal in all I do. I need technical information in all as well and I want to gain understanding in all of those as well. It really is just a bad way to name these categories. I haven't thought about how to do it better yet, I personally like the ziglang docs where everything is presented as a huge reference document with examples in each section. The only additional thing that is needed is usually something like APIs and executable code. Of course the reference document can also have executable samples like what Stripe does. But somehow I think a dedicated section for example code is legitimate in addition to a long reference.
it's the only useful definition because what else would ever be useful just for its own sake? There has to be a reference point and the moment you have one, it's technically not intrinsic anymore. So we can't do that.
there is intrinsic in the context of where we are as humans, that's why saying that there is intrinsic worth is correct. Humans need to eat, intrinsically. I guess partially it depends on whether the word 'intrinsic' still applies.
I don't agree with it because while I think that it's theoretically correct, the words are too close together. To me "tutorial", "how to guide" and "explanation" are all practically synonyms. I know that when you think deeply about it, there are legitimate reasons for each category but it's just too close semantically that my brain can't see the difference. If I want to know how something works and I see "tutorial" and "how to guide" I have no idea what to click and I just click on the first thing.
yes, Intel chips aren't even that bad. Sure Intel fell back a little compared to AMD but the benchmarks are not far off at all, in fact in some Intel is ahead while consuming a bit more power. It really feels like most people make their decisions purely based off of social group consensus and not what is actually true. https://www.phoronix.com/review/apple-m4-intel-amd-linux/3
Yes, "associated with". But it is not part of the definition of the word. I don't know how much clearer anybody could make this. Democracy just means voting, it does not even mean that everyone gets to vote and certainly not equally. Even if you don't like it and even if you want that to be included in the word definition, that doesn't make it so.
Words have a fairly precise dictionary meaning and it's important not to constantly wage a word war where you want to win political and social arguments through word redefinitions. It's information pollution, you redefine words like "love", "equality", "freedom", "democracy" until they mean something completely different and suddenly you have a divided population that can't even talk to each other anymore because all this confusion that you just had over the word "democracy" is only possible because you are misusing the word.
All of those are just additional things ones wishes democracies to have but are not inherent in the word definition. I can certainly see that some people wish to have the definition of "democracy" expanded to mean many additional things but that really isn't the point of having that very precise word.
Yes I know what the word is being used these days for but it doesn't make sense. Democracy does not inherently have anything to do with these additional (also vague) terms.
I think using the word "democratization" is the main issue, how does that even make sense in software? Who is doing the voting? You just "vote" by forking...? I don't get it, you also "vote" by using Microsoft Excel.
In a way it shouldn't be tied to size either, it should be tied to results. If a social company is clearly only interested in profit to the exclusion of societal benefits then they deserve to be regulated.