chalsprhebaodu

Religiously.

I’ve commented it before, and surely it’s something I’m doing wrong, but I cannot believe system prompts or GPTs or any amount of instructing actually works for people to get ChatGPT to respond in a certain fashion with any consistency.

I have spent hours and hours and hours and hours trying to get ChatGPT to be a little less apologetic, long-winded, to stop reiterating, and to not interpret questions about its responses as challenges (i.e when I say “what does this line do?” ChatGPT responds “you’re right, there’s another way to do it…”).

Nothing and I mean NOTHING will get ChatGPT with GPT-4 to behave consistently. And it gets worse every day. It’s like a twisted version of a genie misinterpreting a wish. I don’t know if I’ve poisoned my ChatGPT or if I’m being A/B tested to death but every time I use ChatGPT I very seriously consider unsubscribing. The only reasons I don’t are 1) I had an insanely impressive experience with GPT-3, and 2) Google is similarly rapidly decreasing in usefulness.

1. No one has to have made that specific claim to warrant something be done.

2. Pushing screens to schools may have been accepted under the impression they weren’t worse than learning on paper.

LiberateD

FreeD

A malicious npm package created by the attacker specifically crafted to open up a port that listens and executes commands and otherwise untrusted or unverified code on the victim’s machine.

    function* operation() {
      //@ts-expect-error `string` is not assignable to `number`!
      let count = yield* createString();
      return count.toExponential()
    }

Is this a typo? How does the compiler know that count should be a number?

> This is great news now that the industry phased out physical **audio** connection on phones in favor of wireless.

I recognize that there’s still wired audio connectors but you know full well that the experience is not great because the industry wanted to remove audio jacks.

Take this from someone who has been down this road: you are way over-thinking this.

Until you accept this, you will be holding yourself back as a JavaScript developer.

If you need objects with encapsulated state and methods, use classes.

OOP does not magically introduce baggage or complexity.

Your proposed solution is still OOP. Coming up with your own OOP framework will introduce baggage and complexity.

Classes are highly optimized in modern JS engines.

Classes can be transpiled to performant code for legacy JS engines.

There are times when classes are not the right choice, but avoiding classes when they’re the obvious right choice is a clear indicator that a developer is unwilling to actually learn JavaScript.

Edit:

Your example code also has a bug, where your methods don’t actually mutate the properties of the returned object.

Please take the leap and just learn to use JavaScript classes!

Is this a tangential question? The OP suggests that there’s a utility to piracy beyond ideological reasons and just getting stuff for free. In other words, the categories you posed are not mutually exclusive.

They explain the 0-runtime pretty thoroughly.

Node builds on top of V8, Chromium’s JS engine, which has JIT, which allows for some optimizations that aren’t as easy or obvious in a simple bytecode interpreter.

You need a GitHub account but you don’t need to use GitHub otherwise (e.g. for source control) in order to use Copilot.

I’d shorten it to just HTML at that point, where the H is short for HTML:

HTML: Turing-complete Machine Language

Most things learned don’t provide strict tools to enforce that you don’t use old practices where better modern practices exist. Do you question what the purpose is of learning most things?

Also, there are tools to look for old practices and suggest modern ones.

    Calling “unsafe” as an escape for Rust’s rigid system is the same as saying that C++ can do inline assembly so you can copy/paste infinite optimizations done outside the compiler infrastructure.

That’s not the same at all. Unsafe can be used pragmatically.

    [Regarding UB in C++] So why C++ ignored that possible edge case? Because signed overflow in C++ is undefined behavior and as far as the compiler is concerned, it will never happen. With the edge case reasoned away by the language, the compiler is free to implement that optimization…

    If you compile a similar function in Rust, you will see that Rust will be unable to optimize that expression away because both signed and unsigned overflows in Rust are well defined in the language as a two’s complement… 

    Again, pundits will state that you could have called one of the arithmetic wrapping functions, which will force the compiler to do this optimization. Well you can do many things but here we are measuring the effect of the compiler over two similar blocks of code.

Talk about premature optimization. You’d rather have all of the pitfalls of Undefined Behavior to get an optimization you can achieve in Rust because you’d rather be less explicit?

This article is clearly not directed at me.

For the record, I love C++ and use it daily and will continue to do so. I also like Rust. It can be frustrating at times to have to change the way you think about structuring your program between the two, but that doesn’t mean that one or the other can’t be used effectively and safely.

Have you considered that it’s not indecipherable or clownish and perhaps you are a part of a group that just doesn’t get it?

Why is this inherently better than better tooling for dependency management?

Very interesting. I have literally the exact opposite experience. Of the 15 or so acquaintances of mine that use it, only one or two I would say use it occasionally, nearly all of them use it daily or nightly (often multiple times), occasionally “quitting” cold turkey for short periods.

Some of these people are highly informed about cannabis, some less so, but I don’t think any of them are under the impression that their use is particularly healthy. That said, it would probably be meaningful for them to see the results of this study.

I only regularly listen to comedy podcasts.

- Threedom: Funny people Scott Aukerman, Lauren Lapkus, Paul F. Tompkins talk and play improv games

- Hey Riddle Riddle: Chicago improvisers Adal Rifai, Erin Keif, and JPC try to solve riddles and then do improv scenes tangentially related to them

- Doughboys: Funny people Nick Wiger and Mike Mitchell and usually a guest review chain restaurants in America

- Scott Hasn’t Seen: Comedan Shaun Diston and deranged human being Scott Aukerman and a guest watch and talk about one of the many movies Scott somehow has never seen.

Oh man, I love Hey Riddle Riddle.

I can definitely the utility of it.

Perhaps a standalone function (like nixRaw) could work to enable this.

That seems reasonable! I can’t really locate any examples of that functionality. Could you show me what that would look like?

I am thrilled to hear that this effort exists.

What’s the rationale for the heavy use of tagged template literals in the API? From the outside, it seems like an esoteric choice that makes ergonomics slightly worse, less approachable, and less idiomatic. This seems to fly directly in the face of the goals of this project.

All that said, I could be convinced that the API choice isn’t a mistake.

At any rate, I’m excited to see where this project goes.

Yeah, imagine how they feel.

Sometimes the compiler types clone for you even you don’t actually want it to.

Cringe

Ah, so the opinions of my wife and my mother who don’t blog or comment on hacker news about animations don’t count?

Also, self-selection/non response bias. Why would people who like them but otherwise don’t feel strong about them ever comment about it?

Access to your existing steam library? No.

Really? Clearly some people enjoy scroll driven animations as a stylistic choice and you’re given a warning and a chance to opt out and you still complain?

I believe you could use a sub tree mutation observer instead of polling.