digitalPhonix

This. Also, I think reading the exact same sentence structure, style and voice everywhere I go is getting mentally taxing.

Before I could read different articles, posts and emails on different topics from different authors and read a variety of ways of expressing things. Now it's just the same way of expressing a point and I think the lack of variety is what triggers the fatigue.

I used to be mostly indifferent on LLM generated writing and didn’t understand why it bothered people (especially on HN) so much.

Either a switch in my brain flipped or something is making them all sound like they’re perpetually trying to make a sales pitch.

No one talks or writes like this:

> So the flags are a filter, not a verdict. Every alert still ends with a human reading the diff. I'd rather say that than pretend the classifier is smarter than it is.

Especially not for a post ostensibly capturing legalese change in company TOSs.

Did I start noticing it more or is the writing getting worse?

I've started email the customer support of pages that have overzealous CF settings saying that it's a pain and that if they want to keep me as a customer they need to fix it.

Most give a canned response of "we can't do anything" ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ but some small sites do something. GitLab has the most annoying CF bouncer and I moved my company off them once I got the we can't do anything about it response.

That's my point - GSL is NOT MSVC only, it's a general purpose library and NOT a standard library implementation of a toolchain so any compiler is expected to be able to compile it (it also explicitly targets clang & gcc).

> The fundamental and defining property of football

Are you sure it's not that you use your foot to manipulate a ball?

Herb Sutter's comment on why it's ok is confusing to me:

> Regarding the use of UB internally: It's okay and if anyone is worried about it the use of UB is benign on the platforms we target (e.g., they don't involve hitting any hardware trap representations for these types)

Isn't the outcome of the UB (ie. whether it will "rm -rf /" or something else) dependent on both the target and the compiler? And the compiler (or future compiler) could plausibly make the assumption that the narrowing to an unrepresentable value will never occur and change behaviour because of it?

> Lying to a federal officer is a crime

That doesn’t pass the sniff test

> Here is the method, the results, and an honest account of the limitations.

Pot meet kettle?

> That isn't what happens. I know many, many people believe it to be what happens, but I know from years of seeing the process on the inside that it's absolutely not what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases.

If quite literally every person I interact with professionally has an anecdote about this happening, your anecdote about it not happening is not very convincing.

Have you/SO staff/SO mods considered why this impression is so prevalent if you’re confident it’s (as you claim) not actually true?

> But in Europe the regulators see it as their job to consider esoteric second order effects

That’s seems like a thing I want a regulator to do. A regulator making decisions only on first order effects seems doomed to fail.

Pretty sure it was the crash (same story with Cruise for that matter)

This is a “perfect is the enemy of good” situation.

If the alternative was permanent standard time this argument would be meaningful; but the alternative is switching time twice a year. (unless there is also proposed legislation for permanent standard time?)

> Many of the patients I’ve interviewed, including a lawyer who works as a privacy advocate, told me they’re afraid that speaking up or pushing back against terms they don’t agree to will make health providers categorize them as inconvenient patients and make it harder to get the care they need

There really needs to be more regulation/legislation around privacy in high stakes situations or when there is extreme power imbalance between the parties.

Water is wet. It is in the interest of SK Hynix (and Micron/Samsung etc.) to convince people that the shortage is not a short term issue regardless of whether it is or not.

I’ll believe it’s a long term shortage if DRAM fabs are being built simultaneously with the bleating.

> A NOBUS backdoor in an asymmetric primitive that looks like "X% of all keys is weak"

That’s not a NOBUS backdoor. It’s a different type of backdoor and I’m pointing out that proving there is no NOBUS backdoor doesn’t mean there’s no other backdoor.

It’s a counterexample that I came up with in 5 minutes, not a proof that it’s useful to a state actor.

This post makes a bad argument.

Saying that there's no "Nobody but us backdoor" to prove there's *no* backdoor of *any kind* is clearly naive at best, dishonest at worst.

As an example - if there's a weakness that affects 50% of keys (replace with whatever hypothetical number), NSA can make sure it doesn't use those affected keys but still retain the ability to decrypt 50% of everyone else's communications. And using the entropy analysis from this post, that would require 1 bit hidden in the parameters which is clearly within the entropy budget.

I can:

- Right-click and re-open a tab in a different container

- Automatically switch to a container for certain domains

- Organise tabs of different containers amongst each other (eg. same site opened in different containers next to each other)

- Not clutter my window manager just to separate browsing data

> AI search is a totally different product

Exactly. Sometimes I need "determinism" in my queries (ie. I understand how my search query shapes the results) because I know what I'm looking for. Other times I need help exploring the result space.

Importantly, *I* know which situation I'm in and I can choose which tool satisfies it.

Plenty of GUI apps target advanced users.

I use CLI tools when CLI tools make sense, GUI tools when GUI tools make sense.

(This has a graph, so a GUI doesn’t seem unreasonable)

> This is how every benevolent dictator starts

I don’t think “benevolent” is necessary in that sentence. It’s how many non-benevolent dictatorships started.

The intersection of phones that have unlockable bootloaders, public-ish driver blobs and decent hardware is tiny.

What other phone would you pick?

If they wanted to do that, your chances of "I talk, and it screws me" are pretty high anyway.

Also, don't take my word for it - here's a US police officer saying the same thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE (skip to the second half)

He wouldn't talk to police.

The point of the article (and any similar advice) is that 4 is not possible

67 feels different. The vim/emacs gag feels authentic in the way that someone surrounded by cs/vim/emacs/unix culture would want to stir the pot playfully. "Do a barrel roll" similarly feels like something culturally relevant to whoever implemented it.

No one involved in implementing 67 is of the age group where it was culturally significant so it feels like trying to jump on a bandwagon to feel relevant. And also making the screen shake was the best they could come up with?

Or I'm just looking for excuses to justify my idea that old Google was cool ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄

I still don't see where HF is explained?

But no new easter eggs (that I'm aware of). I think those easter eggs could only have been created in the 2000s Google culture.

The fact that they're still around doesn't really say anything about the current culture (but the lack of new ones does, somewhat).

> No broadcaster has a 'right' to use the pubic [sic] spectrum,

(Last line on page 5: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-530A1.pdf )

The lack of any proof-reading seems pretty emblematic of the thought process of this "threat".

I’m guessing you’re not from Melbourne?

“Tramways” are a specific type of road dedicated for trams, separated by dividers. “Tram lanes” are regular roads with tracks that are for exclusive use by trams, usually for part of the day and shared with cars for the rest.

The majority of the tram network is on roads shared with regular vehicle traffic (ie. neither a tramway nor a tram lane).

When trams are moving on shared roads they have no right of way special to them EXCEPT at roundabouts.

(I also know a PTV tram operator who lost their job for rear ending a car that suddenly stopped to turn right)

The context was

> If I have to slam the brakes on to avoid hitting a pedestrian

In that case you will not be at fault.

> in lane dedicated ONLY for trams and buses where trams have priority anyway

I’m not sure about Swedish road rules, but I don’t see any note about it being a dedicated lane

> At least that's how it always in American English

You already found the answer.

To me, all of ()[]{} (and depending on context <>) are “brackets” in the sense that they bracket whatever is between them. Then a brace is a single side of a bracket (ie. opening brace plus closing brace make a bracket).

So to distinguish between the different brackets/braces you use “round”, “square”, “curly” or “angled” respectively. And “round” is the default so you often skip specifying that.

That’s been the convention in programming and maths everywhere I’ve worked outside America (in English).