botanical76

This is a bizarre take to me. If food is on my tray in 60 seconds, I'm concerned what corners they are cutting to serve food this fast. It sounds terribly stressful for the employees. How can 5-10 minutes be considered slow?

I think in any case, this is an entirely different qualm than the other issues, like taking orders only via kiosk, or constantly up-selling you during the order.

Personally, I hate the McDonald's app. All the vouchers seem quite plainly optimized to encourage you to come back. I hate this kind of psychological micro-optimization of human behaviours. I would take a ten minute order every time if they stopped trying to manipulate me.

When has something like this ever happened? It feels like legislature exists to make money happy.

It does create an interesting choice, though. For example, certain apps will enforce attestation based on the bootloader status. Even if the user wipes their device and relocks their bootloader with their own keys, this doesn't count as fully secure per the bootloader status. Only Google's keys count. Of course, it is also almost prohibitively difficult to deliver yourself OTA updates after this point. I worry that one day I will have to keep two mobile phones; one for bank apps, which has not been altered from the vendor's security defaults, and one for everything else, that I am actually allowed to modify.

At the moment, I just run GrapheneOS and don't bother with any modification. It is not worth the hassle. I've already had my bank account locked out because a Google Store-bought Pixel phone was flagged as "stolen", probably due to some attestation measure (they could not tell me why). They recommended that I purchase a new phone.

Do you feel that Npm, mix, cargo went the wrong way, doing too much? It seems like their respective communities _love_ the standard tooling and all that it does. Or is Python fundamentally different?

Thanks for ringing some bells. It's been a long time since I used that equation.

The Wikipedia page is incredibly abstract. Could someone please explain how a GOMS model justifies removing a dedicated "switch input" button from a television remote?

I don't know if you need something as expensive as an HDFury. I know most $30 "4K upscalers" have a HDCP stripper built in.

edit: to further your point, though, I think most people's gaming monitors don't support HDCP _at all_. [citation needed]

This is a good idea. You could take a set of problems, have the LLM solve it, then continuously rewrite the LLM's context window to introduce subtle bugs or coding errors in previous code submissions (use another LLM to be fully hands off), and have it try to amend the issues through debugging the compiler or test errors. I don't know to what extent this is already done.

There are cheats that give you more information than you should have. These typically require access to the game process's memory space.

If you're cheating with a video capture card, this likely means you're allowing a program to rewrite your inputs to more accurately target player models. You will likely be banned if you do this on the same machine via screen capture. A video capture card can process the information on a separate computer, e.g. location of enemies by searching for specific colours, then write into a virtual USB mouse on the gaming rig to keep the player's crosshair on the enemy model. I'm not sure about specifics, but this kind of cheat is almost undetectable; it is only really mitigated by the cost and effort involved to do it.

Players can add additional mitigations on top of this, like only activating aim assist while the shoot button is pressed, to make it entirely undetectable.

I would be interested to know how many people do formulate a whole sentence before saying it. "Think before you speak" as they say. I feel I do not have the cognitive window or processing speed to do this; instead, I formulate a concept of how I would like to respond abstractly, and then think of and say phrases of several words one at a time until the sentence ends itself. The latter process leans heavily on some kind of next word anticipation.

I suppose you are making a point about hypocrisy. Yes, I use GenAI products. No, I do not agree with how they have been trained. There is nothing individuals can do about the moral crimes of huge companies. It's not like refusing to use a free Meta LLama model constitutes as voting with your dollars.

You're right, this approach is too easy to spot. Instead, pass all your blog posts through an LLM to automatically inject grammatically sound inaccuracies.

FWIW, a "Network Access" app permission is one of the features that GrapheneOS provides. It is only setting offered to the user every single app install. It should be in base AOSP, and I have to wonder why it isn't already.

Isn't this a recipe to complacency? Things that are worth achieving take hard work. If I only do things that I _really_ want to do right now, I'm not sure I will live a fulfilling life. Especially when many of us have been trained by the internet to seek immediate reward above all else.

It's not like you can't decorate all variable access with !! to retain this expressiveness. This is not done in practice because it would be a waste of verifiable type safety. You can always `lateinit val` in cases where the initialization and lifetime of a particular value is trivial, but in cases where you can't do this, you probably benefit from the null safety guarantees.

Yep. More generally, I have a lot of distaste that big tech are the ones driving the privacy conversation. Why would you put the guys with such blatant ulterior motives behind the wheel? But, this seems to be the US way. Customer choice via market share above everything, always, even if that choice gradually erodes the customer's autonomy.

Not that anywhere else is brave enough to try otherwise, for fear of falling too far behind US markets.

Disclaimer: I could be much more informed on the relevant policies which enable this, but I can see the direction we're heading in... and I don't like it.

If you are just playing against bots, the challenge is arbitrary. What would top 10% actually mean? 5000 ELO? Albeit, the ranks are slightly arbitrary already as the matchmaking algorithm significantly influences your competitive experience. But you know when you get higher rank, you have proven you are better than increasing amounts of real players. If every person was actually playing a single player variant of the game (matched against bots), the reward for climbing the ranked ladder is significantly diminished.

Is it? It seems to me to be paired with shareholders' interests, and nothing more.

I've been thinking a lot about this possibility. I think people will have to come up with family passwords eventually. A word or phrase that is regularly practised, but strictly private, for verification in times of crisis.

For example, my family's passphrase is- just kidding.

At least in my "Agile" experience, it is always time for release.

Who complained? The author seems happy with his prize, even with the fair acknowledgement that it is disproportional to the value of his efforts.

This problem is poorly defined; what would it mean to produce a response JUST based on the text given? Should it also forgo all logic skills and intuition gained in training because it is not in the text given? Where in the N dimensional semantic space do we draw a line (or rather, a surface) between general, universal understanding and specific knowledge about the subject at hand?

That said, once you have defined what is required, I believe you will have solved the problem.

Is this some coveted attempt to push tech salaries higher?

I wish this comment were true, because this would mean political parties actually use knowledge and information to encourage people to vote for them. In the democratic elections I am exposed to (UK, US), this could not be further from the truth. Further, I think targeted marketing will always lean away from information and into exploiting emotional responses. A reduction in a bombardment of targeted marketing is a positive thing.

However, there should definitely be exemptions, as political information basically just means anything that matters. I feel that ads must have a clear intention to inform, not sell, when it comes to politics.

What is your suggestion? It seems like you could discourage any form of preventative action against immoral behaviour this way. There is _always_ something worse than the problem at hand.

I'm finding it hard to buy that a precision of 28 decimal digits cannot be computed on today's browsers.

Why could you not have used one of the bigfloat[1] JavaScript libraries that exists? Is there an operation the service requires which is not supported by them?

In any case, thank you for the free service. I'm sure this will be useful to a lot of people. While I would not use a cloud-based calculator, I'm sure a lot of laypeople don't care how it's done, and I appreciate your focus on utmost accuracy.

[1] - https://github.com/davidmartinez10/bigfloat

This reminds me of some of the early linting tools that emerged around the time ES5 / node.js was blowing up. I found the defaults to be insanely distracting, giving me warnings about unused variables etc as I was still typing the code (of course it's unused, I just defined it!)

GitHub Copilot is similar, defaulting to provide suggestions to finish your LOC whenever you stop typing. While the AI tools can be very useful, the benefit is lost if I can't focus on what I'm writing.

Introducing AI into education will be non trivial. This is difficulty is observable already in my experience.

When offering advice on how to learn how to program, I have to heavily recommend that students try their best to avoid the use of AI. Whereas previously the best advice I could give was to "build something", it is now possible to build a piece of software without understanding it at all. I have observed this myself with Rust; I have built a few programs now by repeatedly prompting AI models. I have even been quite engaged in designing the architecture, guiding the programs towards patterns that my intuition as a programmer says will be good for Rust too. The software works, but I can't help but feel I have learned nothing at all. Building something is now insufficient to learn, at least in the domain of programming.

I feel there will be far more compilations we will have to address in order to benefit from AI in education. That said, I am still optimistic that it will be a net positive force.

I wonder if this is relevant to tech workers. Does a second monitor - if not used as a productivity boost, but rather a neutral convenience - hinder your capability to focus on tasks? Should we turn it off to properly focus?

I have suspected this might be the case for a while, but I'm not aware that it is obvious.

What other word would you suggest?

I've seen "bullshitting" suggested, but this of course still implies intent, which AIs do not have in any typical sense of the word.

I think we as a community have settled on hallucination as the best English word that approximately conveys the idea. I've seen folks on here making up words to describe it, as if that is any more useful to the victim here. The victim being the uninformed (w.r.t AI tech) layperson.