clankyclanker

No, in this context, "grep" is more of a threat than anything.

This snippet just sets a few variables before returning "R" if the function was called in a functional context, or quitting with no value if the caller doesn't expect a value.

Since "K" is a non-truthy, but non-null value, "l1" is never added to S in the T label. "l1" is another non-null-but-false value, so S wouldn't have changed value anyway. The entire thing is just an ugly looking no-op.

I think you've got it: the point isn't persuasion, the point is exhaustion and disengagement. If you can keep shouting until the other side goes home, your opinions become more prevalent. You can then make your opinions so prevalent that other folks assume there's no point to engaging (voting? commenting?) because of how outnumbered contrary opinions are. At that point, your opinion has become reality. It relies on psychological tricks to subvert the one-voice-one-vote rule (c.f., State Street).

I’m sorry, that was my mistake. I confused usernames and thought you were jmeister. Thanks for clarifying. It’s been a long week.

Embracing Grice’s maxims may help here [0]? Being a pit of cynicism isn’t a particularly nuanced take, please do better than that.

0: https://youtu.be/IJEaMtNN_dM

That seems like a big jump, right?

How do you get from public announcements of layoffs (ostensibly based on failure of several movies), to market inefficiencies from governmental subsidies, to forced labor camps?

I’m so lost.

Sure, but that was the “microcomputer” of the time. Room-sized main-frames were the computers, the file-cabinet sized PDP-8 was a mini-computer, and something that could fit on your desk was therefore the next size down, the micro-computer.

This was around when the most portable computer was not known as a “laptop” but a “luggable” due to its mini-fridge-like nature.

It’s interesting how well your description follows the Gartner Hype Cycle, but applied to products instead of hype itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle

If they aren’t PCs, and they aren’t microcomputers, then what should they be called?

Given today's news article [1], this seemed relevant again.

(Previous discussions on [2] and [3].)

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35196173

2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7715012

3: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7388833

In 2014, Replicant found and fixed similar modem vulnerabilities, which Samsung never patched, AFAIK.

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/replicant-developers-fin...

Have we surpassed incompetence and arrived at maliciousness yet?

Igalia is that, in Spain:

http://www.igalia.com/

Is that 24h after receipt, or 24h after opening? I believe their text messages use the latter system and would expect the video ones to do the same.

Bikeshedding?

http://bikeshed.com

Do you have any sources on the development process of the Radiant AI that I could read up on?

I’ve only heard the marketing speak (“amazing!!!!”) followed by the actual product (“get X for Y at Z, 5 times”). I’ve never seen anything that explained the disconnect, aside from Todd just being a sheister.

Nope, get a new SIM. There’s some writable memory on them, iirc.

Her position doesn’t invalidate her arguments. How good is a product that can’t stand up to criticism?

Edit: to tie it back to the original criticism: what’s the maximum training cost we’re willing to accept for the model? How can we guarantee return greater than the increased training cost?

Sure, but eventually we’re going to hit on environmental and cost-effective power limits of training, and it’s not worth the cost to train the model.

AFAIUI, that’s part of the point that Gebru was trying to make before she was fired.

Very!

The linked product looks like using Org-mode for teams, but usable, and without having to learn Emacs. That’s bananas.

It does happen sometimes. My personal favorite example is this guy. I recommend search terms like "james clapper perjury congress". If this fish never got fried in the biggest pan of all, what chance do these little chefs have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clapper

See:

https://jonathanturley.org/2013/07/03/perjury-by-permission-...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap...

https://apnews.com/article/business-33a88feb083ea35515de3c73...

The one in the YouTube video looks very similar to (or exactly like) one of the designs from one of the Klutz books around the turn of the millennium. I might’ve found it in the Explorabook? I’m pretty sure they called it the best paper airplane you’ll ever make, it even had the same wing flaps.

It also looks almost exactly like one in the cover of the paper airplane book:

Klutz Book of Paper Airplanes Craft Kit https://a.co/94zUS0G

Turns out Klutz might’ve printed quite a few paper airplane instruction manuals.

Sure, but it’s even more efficient to leave those coal mines unmined.

> 1) the rise of algorithms (which can't be patented) in replacing physical IP

You’re assuming there’s an inherent limit to ownership. The rise of software patents themselves are an expansion of the concept of ownership.

If there’s gold in them there hills, why would they go unmined? See “Are Business Method Patents Going to be Second Class Citizens?” for the “everything is ownable and licensable” side of the argument.

https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorn...

That’s fascinating, and not in the article at all, that I saw.

Edit: To put it more succinctly, Musk isn’t interested in free speech, he’s interested in his speech.

————

For what it’s worth, I agree with you, but I think that’s one of the least interesting parts of the issue.

From the context of the worker, there’s isn’t too much of a functional difference. Musk is acting as the arbiter of others’ speech. So he’s allowing anybody to say anything, unless it goes against the company line.

It’s not governmental control of the little people, but it’s still hella control of the little people, by a body that can’t be held responsible to the workers (the chances of Elon being voted out are nil).

Ultimately, I think we’re both agreeing that there can and should be social consequences for speech, it’s just that Elon has an army of well paid lawyers to help him avoid those consequences. In this case, the giant power imbalance seems like pretty fundamental framing to this issue. It’s not like both parties would suffer the same consequences for making the same statements.

(In short, if you don’t trust the government to regulate your speech, why on Earth would you trust a single unelected individual to do so?)

The point I assume GP was trying to make is that Musk only applies that difference when it suits him. That attitude shows hypocrisy and is evidence that he’s using it to further personal power instead of actually caring about the moral philosophy of the matter.

He seems to treat his own speech as if it is completely unfettered by any restraint, regardless of consequences for self or company (see the sheer number of times he’s upset the SEC via tweet compared to any other C-level in the world), while restraining the shit out of his subordinates’.

When that single cheat might have resulted in expulsion if it were caught, it implies a pretty significant effect on the grade.

It wouldn’t actually change the result of the metric (because survivorship bias: you don’t count students who never graduated in the graduated student population), but it changes the believability of and the ethic behind the metric. Now we can say that at least 10% of the folks who graduated didn’t earn their grades, and the school’s reputation is less for it.

Right. For most (American) companies (I don’t know about GDPR-folks), “delete” means “hide from requesting user” not “remove data from internal system.”

Data is (at least a big part of) their business and they don’t further that end by removing data.

Of course it’s shitty, but it’s industry standard practice. It’s similar to the Facebook shadow profile you have when you don’t even have a Facebook account: you can ask them to delete your direct data, but they’ll never remove the implications they learned from that data.

GTFO: a 2-player side scrolling game where one player controls a stick person trying to run, jump, climb, or swim to the other side of the level.

The other player plays the environment and tries to smite the first player and thwart their escape attempt by creating deadly natural disasters along the way, but can’t directly attack or interact with the other player.

Players are scored based on how far the escapee gets through the board and how quickly the environment kills the other player.

An escaping player might want to quickly parkour between buildings by jumping the gap between the roofs. However, if the environment player had already clicked the ground and planted a tree between the buildings, they could then call down lightning on to the tree to fry the jumping escapee. The escapee might then try to climb down the building to walk under the tree before climbing back to the roof to sprint over the tops of buildings again. Picking a more exposed path with fewer obstacles lets the escapee move more quickly but also offers less protection from the environment.

It’d be a two-player competitive side scrolling action game, where one player controls the course environment, which is something I’ve never seen before.

I suspect it’s related to a lack of immediate cost to the largest companies.

Derailments are still infrequent enough that the company can be insured against the losses, so if derailments happen, there’s effectively zero cost to the company.

That would change if this class of train made incidents so frequent that insurance companies were no longer willing to sell insurance for derailments incidents involving this type of train. At that point, they’d be phased out of the fleet (as they crashed out of service) and then individually written off as a tax-deductible loss.