activitypea

I'm not familiar with the situation, but this "refutation" sounds bleaker than the original claim

> This repository isn’t archived because the only person with the rights to do so is unreachable

I hate "did you even read my comment" replies, but again, you're pitching me on "trends throughout a time period", "larger trends throughout history" and "all kinds of other useful information that can impact decisions".

I don't think a person without interest in literary analysis would make this comment. On the contrary, I'm specifically calling out building non-sensical tools with little practical uses because the author of the tool does not engage with literary works beyond the most superficial layer. And because I don't believe quantitive analysis of art is benificial to culture and society, but that's a broader subject.

> Object-oriented (OO) and functional languages differ in many ways, but it’s arguable that how each paradigm models data is the defining characteristic that separates them. Specifically, the question of modeling different variations of related data and the operations on those variants.

Then why is the first example they present about organizing behavior lol

Git's lack of centralization, i.e. a "source of truth" repo at the tool level is it's most imaginary, impractical benefit. Times where I've had to skip over origin and push to someone directly are few. Those occasions are far outweighed by a dozen annoyances that consistently come up with having to tell git "no trust me, origin is the remote I care about". Sure, you can fix it with aliases, but it's still misaligned of how most people work. I don't see the Linux kernel benefiting from it much, either.

I just think it's really funny that a third or so of the article is the author struggling to figure out why this would be useful to anyone.

> scanned and analyzed a whole bunch of books and would let you call up really useful data on books. [...] Frankly, all of that sounds amazing. And amazingly useful. Even more amazing is that he built it, and it worked. It would produce useful analysis of books.

> This is all quite interesting. It’s also the kind of thing that data scientists do on all kinds of work for useful purposes. Smith built Prosecraft into Shaxpir, again, making it a more useful tool.

Author's general illiteracy aside, he's really giving the game away here. I can't even think about the ethical implications of the project, because why would I care to count the number of adverbs and passive voice in all books ever, and why would you need a state of the art LLM-powered AI to do it?

I've never used Uber, so I'm curious: Don't you have a "contact support for this ride" option somewhere? If they can't mediate a two-sided market, they're no better than having a phonebook of recommended drivers in each city

That's... not how it works....

If that were true, then moving to a microservice architecture they'd need 5 million instances of the microservice that replaces the part of the monolith that required 5 million instances in the first place, plus a couple of millies for all the other services.

This conflates two kinds of slowdowns. Post-implementation stuff like thorough peer reviews and automated testing followed by manual QA is usually a net gain on a long enough timeline. The damning and soul-draining part is pre-implementation -- how many people need to agree that the line of code will be changed and how many people must opine on the change before it can be shot over the Dev | QA wall.

The worst place I ever worked at had mandatory "ticket refinement" - a feature or a bug couldn't be worked on until it had been through a "refinement session", in which everyone had to chime in, and the ticket wasn't considered refined until everyone on the team fully agreed with the implementation. Naturally over time, this devolved first into writing pseudo-code in Jira tickets and then into near-production code in a google doc overflowing with comments. Leaving that company I told my manager "this is a team of 4 'senior' engineers, I'd suggest you get one proper senior engineer and 3 typists". Nowadays, you could probably shove minutes from those meetings into copilot and call it a day.

Of course, the flipside of this was that comp was about on par with the market, and the perks were top-tier. If you're okay with doing the bare minimum while spending ~20-30 hours a week on total nonsense, it's probably the dream job.

I feel like most explanations are overcomplicating it.

By the rules of the game, the option of switching is asking you the question "Do you think you chose the correct door out of the three?". If you think you did, you don't switch. If you think you didn't, by rules of the game, switching will get you to the right door. Since you had a 33.3% chance to choose correctly and 66.6% to choose incorrectly, betting against yourself and switching is probably the correct choice.

The exclusions such as Avenged Sevenfold are indeed baffling, but some of the asterisks are so hilarious, I think there was a facebook page collecting them at one point. Stuff like "Meshuggah is Djent which isn't metal (???), but the band will be included based on their earlier work which we consider to be technical thrash/groove metal".

Whenever I have this situation, it's always with a library too big for my smooth little brain to comprehend.

I feel like macros might be a poor name for the feature. Most people in Javascriptland expect macros to enable some sort of AST manipulation, whereas these are "just" compile-time statements. Still pretty cool, but putting "Javascript macros" right there in the title might've been the wrong choice

I just ran into this problem -- not being able to view tweets without logging in. As much as I hate Musk, this is clearly the trajectory of all platforms. Without a unified push towards self-hosting or the fediverse, the internet as we know it is over :(

Huh, I didn't know about the ear scanning thing. I'll give it a try, thank you!

That wouldn't be cross subsidy, that would be selling at a loss, right? I don't think any item has ever been sold for the sum of its bill of materials. The price is always bill of materials + labor + some profit, and here "labor" includes R&D.

My impression that welfare state and social support systems are on par with their neighbors, they just have a stronger culture of labor rights.

What's the difference? You still have to find a way to maximize profit at the cost of pretty much everything else. The only difference is that VCs are more willing to play the long game, whereas the stock market wants better results year over year.

Oh yeah I'm fully aware, I just want to give it an honest shot, but everytime I did it sounds the same as or worse than stereo, even watching/listening DolbyTM AtmosTM Certified ContentTM on DolbyTM AtmosTM Certified DevicesTM

Any tips for Atmos? I've tried turning on "spatial audio" for albums that support it on apple music, but it just sounds more distant and echo-ey. It sounds so bad that I can't imagine anyone liking it, so I must be doing something wrong

I believe anybody who's shopped for a desktop CPU in the past decade knows this. The difference is that a Ryzen 5600X costs 10-15% more than a regular 5600, not twice as much and then some.

> Every reasonable company cancels projects not bringing in enough profits, since shareholders want to see a return on investment. Non-zero profit is not enough.

I see very little reason in cancelling profitable projects. Also, framing my comment as a "misconception" is kinda indisgenious. This is a philosophical disagreement, hard to frame my point of view as objectively wrong.

Unless Sennheiser can prove that the 555s are being sold at a loss, there is no "cross-subsidizing" happening here. You talk as if "the markets" and "the economy" are some naturally occuring phenomena that are matter of fact and non-negotiable.

12ms puts it at about 90hz latency. I play games on a 144hz screen, and I can tell the difference between 90 and 144 hz, and that's on a bad screen at an arms length from my face that's definitely not trying to convince me I'm looking at reality.

It'll probably be in the same ballpark as a good transparency mode on headphones -- close to indistinguishable in small bursts, but long term causes alienation/lack of presence.

How do you sell this without the cameras and sensors?

You thought about leaving a comment for people 10 years from now, and decided to open with "this will be big for furries"?

> Creepy Eyes fake transparency (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face) - The realistic 3d facetime avatar (a work around for the fact that you look dumb wearing ski goggles on your face, creepy eyes isn't a good enough work around for facetime, and you need an external camera to do facetime).

And transparency mode on modern headphones is a waste of time since you can just take them off. I agree both the demoed features suck and I don't want them in my conference calls, but stuff like that is a necessary bridge for a new product category. Hard to call that wasted effort.

> In the recent round of tech layoffs, sometimes it’s unavoidable to have one or two shorter tenures - hiring managers are aware of this, and so this generally doesn’t count against you. But giving the appearance of job hopping in ‘peacetime’ is another thing entirely.

> If you’ve worked more than 4 jobs in the last 4 years, you’re in the danger zone. Many companies will discard a CV quickly if we don’t think you’ll stick around until next year.

I am so tired of this conversation. At this point, all I can do is shut up and be grateful to be rejected by these people if I ever have a spotty resume.

I've been looking for something like this, hopefully other users can weigh in if the curation is any good.

What do you enjoy about it?