Hamlet is set in (what is currently) the past. It is self consistent. Neuromancer is set partially in the future, and partially what is our past. The inconsistency is what throws people. It can be a good book, but people might still find those elements jarring.
It’s great that he has that caveat, but it’s buried under the “Tech Info” tab. Meanwhile, the header says “yes -- I'm the inventor,” and there is no mention of the knots actual history in the “History” page, only how he “invented” it.
My problem with it isn't what he calls it, it's that he claims to have invented it. It would be fine if he said, "yes, other people have been using this knot for decades, but I like to call it Ian's knot."
Would it bother you if I started re-wrote the Wikipedia article on the hot dog in an attempt to convince everyone I invented it? And if people started believing that?
A bit off topic, but I hate that Ian just slapped his name on a knot and people call it that. He even has a little link on there saying "Yes I'm the inventor," which, if you click on it, amounts to "trust me bro." That knot was how my father learned to tie his shoes in the 60s, so Ian must have time-traveled back after "inventing" it in '82.
I don't think it would be me accusing you of having a small penis (since of course you don't). It's me accusing someone named romcade4321 of being a generally shitty person, and also having a small penis. If you think romcade4321 is a reference to you, you would have to prove the similarity between them and you (maybe by dropping your trousers in court?)
I think that is a bad example. I haven't heard of Jewish people being offended by Ferengi, but anti-Semitic depictions are very often exactly "ugly, greedy people" (just look at any Nazi propaganda). Once it becomes a common thread it works less as a defense.
I imagine "small hands" would similarly work poorly as a defense against a defamation suit from Trump: he doesn't have to claim he has small hands, only that he is often depicted as having them.
Seems to be pretty explicit that they don't like the language, not the creator or his political views. I don't like Java, the few times I was forced to use it I hated it, but I don't even know who the creators are.
Like someone else said, for someone to go through such lengths to claim many of their points, it's a pretty tenuous connection to hang half your article on.
But the Gleam Wikipedia page is littered with references? Including to the 2025 Stack Overflow survey page, which has gleam very high on "want to learn" but doesn't have Odin at all...
Why would it be the same percentage increase? RAM is only one component of the whole machine. "We were going to sell our airplane for $10 million, but one screw doubled in price so now we're selling it for $20 million."
They’re adding vibecoded shortcuts (the high level scripting for Apple devices). Hopefully that means they worked out some of the long-existing bugs and missing features, but I’m not optimistic. Still, could be a useful tool, especially for less tech-literate people.
I stopped reading earlier, when they used superscript without explaining its meaning. Its clearly meant for someone with more domain expertise than me, with my hazy recollections of college math.
There would have to be a person pretending to be blind on the other side of the phone call, recording your answers. At that point is it not just easier to have that person do the labeling themselves?
I disagree. There is more content out there than I can read in many lifetimes, so I have to be selective. LLM generated text (like any text) can be well put together on the surface level but require deeper consideration to see the flaws, and of course this takes more effort than the writing did.
A human-written piece indicates someone believes in it enough to put in enough effort to write it up nicely, so it works as a heuristic of underlying quality.
The level that they managed to fit everything inside of a simple-looking package was so high that the CEO of ULA (the Boeing/Lockheed Martin rocket company) thought they were lying when they first showed pictures [1].
It seems like running with sandbox-exec should remove pretty much all the potential for an app to cause harm… is there a reason why it’s not the default, especially for these certificate-less apps?
Mobileye still sells to a large fraction of manufacturers (I think a plurality if not majority). You will still get variation in implementation, as Mobileye only does the sensing side, and the integration is done by the OEM.
Tons of consultants are missing expertise in their clients' wheelhouses. The client and consultant each have domain knowledge, and when those domains overlap, there might be conflicts.
If you hire an architect to redo your house, it's fine to say "I see where you're going with this thing for my kids, but I know them and they will never go for it."
I think the issue comes with unknown unknowns. Before Fukushima someone might have said the same thing you just have, but a new disaster still came along and caused a lot of issues. I am still bullish on nuclear, but I think waving away concerns might do more harm than good.
I may agree with your conclusion that old plants are safe enough (or at least take a deep dive study to see if their expected externality is worse than whatever would replace them). However:
> the worst disaster to ever happen without any external factors
The problem is external factors happen. You can’t just raise your hands up and say “wasn’t my fault,” when they do. A tsunami washing over a solar farm would be a lot safer than what happened at Fukushima.
I did consider that. I remember nope-ing out of alacritty in the early days after seeing the developers response to people requesting a scrollback buffer. It amounted to something like "I use tmux, and if you don't, you use the terminal wrong." It left a bad taste in my mouth.