Seems probable seeing the kind of attacks of his political views in this thread. I'd too keep a firearm for voicing social justice opinions in a country fubar:ed by grief.
39 karma · joined November 1, 2022
1: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ps3-emulation-i9-12900k-vs...
Mans Rullgard was of the guys leading the toxic mob.
Not the other way around as you are implying.
Source: I was involved in ffmpeg at the time and read their mailing list over those years.
This is a well studied and absolutely serious issue called decision fatigue [1]. You seem to be downplaying it's consequences by a large margin, most likely because you do not understand it.
I disagree. Their NIH-syndrome and ancient practices seem to be a constant source of new CVE:s [1].
I did not try to make a point of the time of month, but of the claim in the title.
OP only solved the very first task of day 1, and the title suggest all was solved.
If you only can understand a part of what was written, then perhaps you should not comment on it and pretend like you understood the rest too.
What advances in computing? As we approached physical limits we've seen cpu and gpu stopped scaling for a couple of years already [1]. The new models just run on higher frequencies and consume unpropornally more wattage.
Quantum computing is a joke [2]. AI is just a overhyped rephrasing of machine learning.
This is rather hinting about the next decade of no technological progress.
And don't get me started on the effects of recession.
1: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/09/do-expensive-nvidia-g...
rappers disagree
The blog attempts to solve 3 of 24 (thats 12.5 %) of advent of code 2022, and if you read along you'll see OP only had success on the first task of day 1, which would make a more correct title as "AI solves 2% of Avent of Code 2022" (assuming 2 tasks each day).
Do note that AoC tends to start with hello-world style tasks and increase in difficulty.
What made you change opinion? Afaik, nothing has changed in the field except the amount of hype surrounding it.
Why would we trust "a website" more than random wikipedia edits to provide correct or up-to-date data?
The purpose of this app is to get the current url of those sites, which keeps changing url semi-frequently, so a offline copy of wikipedia would not work.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyware#History:
> The first recorded use of the term spyware occurred on October 16, 1995 in a Usenet post that poked fun at Microsoft's business model. Spyware at first denoted software meant for espionage purposes.
Why do you state such things as facts given no evidence.
Google has a whole team working on analyzing app store malware. It is called Project Zero.
As a counter example you can read their very latest blog post which just happens to analyze android app store malware:
https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2022/11/mind-the-gap....
Countries like Japan had already solved encoding differently while US was still using ASCII. (See JIS encoding).
As time passed tho, the byte savings matter less. Also combined with transfer compression makes the encoding size differences negligible.
Writing a Really Tiny RISC-V Emulator by CNLohr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5vB3UqU_E
Also it is not true. A sibling comment mentions Nintendo Switch OS.
I see Windows, Windows CE, XBox and even MS-DOS on that list.
> As it turns out. Humans love meeting other humans in real live way more than meeting people online.
That's one way of putting it.
But the economic implications is way more severe. This reasoning about constant economic growth has had the world fooled for way too long.
My experience with js-land is that choosing a typescript and make use of the @types packages is _the_ modern way of doing js dev. What you describe is basically do the same people did 15 years ago.
That is not a trade-off, but a refusal to re-evaluate the situation under changing conditions.
I disagree. The lesson learned from a decade of js tooling is performance issues.
That is why you see more and more js tooling rewritten in rust or other fast languages.
This is GOOD for js development, in the sense you end up with better faster more powerful tooling.
In the article, the author confirms his test was not working:
> But that bug in my code ruined one month of my work. I coded without realizing tests don't work at all. OUCH!
The issue is exactly what parent mentions, that OP did not let his test fail first so that they were never confident in that the test worked.