Musicians might not think of their personal instruments in that way, but surely any musician will acknowledge that there exist cheaply made imitations of their instruments that can be treated as more or less disposable. I can get a trumpet on ebay for $60 shipped to my door, and I expect to be able to do whatever I damn please with it, screw what anyone else says.
This is a fairly common condition, along the same lines as aphantasia (lack of inner-picture, rather than inner-voice). I do not believe there is any “cure” for it.
You are referring to providing a sequential post ID past the current latest? That is more of a quirk of their naming convention than a product feature. UUID's, for instance, would not support this, and checks could be made in either case to prevent it.
No, the underlying structure is a DAG. I've already stated this, and that heavy UI affordances should be made to support ease of interaction with this model.
To be cyclical they’d need to have elements in reply to a post made after they were created. Including back references is a way of adding more parents, not children.
An idea I’ve been playing around with in my head for some time is to have LLM’s play a role in somehow generating an idealized debate structure of any given topic. For example, given the prompt “Namespaces are one honking great idea – let's do more of those!”, many actors (LLM’s, humans, etc) would submit top level replies to a hidden container. Eventually, an LLM would look over all the replies and cluster them into a small number of “essential responses”. The process repeats with each of these responses being new top level nodes. Eventually, a tree/dag/graph/something is created that recursively contains all the things one might have to say about the topic at hand.
You could edit a comment to violate the DAG criterion, but not every edit that references a prior node must result in violation of the DAG. Those edits which would result in a violation should be prohibited.
The best way IMO is still (somehow) a 4chan-style linear timeline, with heavy UI affordances to make following >-ref’s simple. This application (and HN, and Reddit) go with the “threads on threads on threads” tree, which is awful for when you want to respond to a specific subset of replies to the same parent comment at once.
How could it be improved? I say embrace the DAG nature of the beast and allow for selecting a specific set of parent nodes a comment is in reply to, and, importantly, make that set editable so when some other person comes in and replies to a comment with a topic that has already been discussed, you can link your earlier replay to that new parent without needing a “see my reply here” comment.
Where does it say taxpayers are underwriting the state's home insurances? And how would that be different from literally any other insurance company ever? Who do you think insurance premiums are paid by?
Yes those. My family is actually among them, and guess what: our insurance premiums went down, and we're no longer being forced to pay for benefits we would never have actually received. (do you really think insurance companies were going to pay out for a natural disaster? their entire business model is refusing to pay out of they can find a way to weasel out of it. to the point they'll call themselves doctors and tell the real doctors what they can and can't do. the less mandatory insurance the better, such that the market might finally force them to be either helpful or cheap, but certainly not neither.)
Yes, a person in the inland empire using gas to get to their job far as fuck away because that’s all the house they can afford should clearly be subsidizing some coastal elite’s “I want a house on a cliff overlooking the ocean” insurance. Because fossil fuel use is the direct cause of the house’s instability.
Nintendo is in an interesting position whereby they are actually selling emulators as a product to this day. Which gives them more of a leg to stand on in these sorts of efforts, regardless of whether or not I personally agree.
Is that true? Back when I was a crew gremlin, my VO2 max as measured via erging was off the charts. But I could apply that cardio capacity to things like running/biking/swimming pretty effectively.
Of course not. It’s just storing bits at the end of the day. But storing seemingly random bits will always be more expensive than storing predictable bits, and this case is no exception: Proton is roughly 4x more expensive per bit than Dropbox.
Sure, but that doesn’t seem very relevant to this thread. Also in express there are certainly ways to do what you say, for instance you could make a middleware like the following:
Clearly the experienced highway engineers in charge balancing a ton of different variables to make the Texas road network function in accordance with its design goals should have sought your advice.
If they have the data and you don’t, why do you assume you’re in the right? Insurance isn’t interested in damage, they’re interested in liability, which is much more closely tied to personal injury than property damage. And it’d be impossible to claim SUV’s don’t help protect the individual most at risk of costing the insurance company money.
Environmental laws too. small pickups don’t exist any more because they can’t meet the MPG requirements for their body size. Giant 3/4 Tons on the other hand? Take two.
Indeed, we need to look at external factors like time/energy expenditure to determine the efficiency of the operation in order to have a hope at constraining its method. If the NSA were to suddenly publish a list of 1,000,000,000 broken SHA512 keys, and there was no sign of any spikes in energy expenditures, we could strongly suspect that they did not generate them from brute force means. Similarly, if we have hundreds of millions of distinct species on the planet, and only a few years of time on the planet (relative to the rate at which we've observed beneficial random mutations actually occurring), we can suspect that the bulk of the speciation did not occur through stochastic means.
The bizarre intermediary forms are specifically those that do not appear, and that would make no evolutionary sense to exist. Things like feathers. Now, evolutionists will come up with fanciful untested (untestable), unobserved (unobservable) narratives in attempt to jam such cases into their world view – and that's all well and good, I do the same. I just don't pretend to call my interpretation scientific, I call it religious/faith-based. They'd do well to do the same.