dpark

A human child is born with no ability to speak intelligibly. All they can do is babble. Through years of training they gain the ability to speak intelligibly and communicate in advanced ways.

The act of successful training means it’s not garbage anymore.

> So it is garbage.

This statement is ultimately meaningless and I continue to find it weird that someone who works in this space would support this view. If you fundamentally change the nature of a thing, it’s no longer that original thing. Is tan HDD still random garbage after you fill it with family photos just because that’s how it starts?

> but neither would I have kept him in my team

Let’s be honest, though. That’s firing from your team.

> trained over time

So not random.

> acceptable outcome to humans

And not garbage.

It’s real weird to see people argue that LLM output is no different than random gibberish and then handwave over the fact that it’s clearly not with terms like “training”, as if a steam of random garbage is trainable.

> The point is that it's the same process

Except it’s not at all the same process. The fact that LLM are non deterministic is not the same as churning out random garbage.

I disagree with you in principle. I think a town that accepts a donation of land for a specific purpose should be as bound as anyone else to the terms of the deed.

In practical terms, it’s not clear that an entity with the power of imminent domain can meaningfully be constrained by deeds.

You call this a rumor at the top of your comment. It’s all hearsay and you can’t really criticize people for assuming something different than you assume. There’s no factual information here to discuss.

1. void * is a type

2. The functions in question here operate on raw memory. void * conveys the same information as byte *. It’s not untyped vs typed. It’s two different types that convey the same information but require slightly different mechanics to obtain.

3. The author explained his reasoning for preferring void * over byte * (or uint8_t *)

4. A reference also isn’t the same thing as a pointer in C++

> later on it's not that easy to understand which shape it should have in the specific conditional branch you're trying to fix

This is not idiomatic C. I have no doubt that someone (likely many someones) have written a function that takes a void * and then internally does some insane half baked dynamic typing. But I’ve never seen it and it’s not common.

You also cannot fix this behavior by changing the pointer type. The type of the pointer is essentially meaningless in this case.

> That is exactly the purpose of void *. By design. It's a pointer to an unspecified type. The unspecified type is exactly why this thing is used.

This is also the purpose of byte * in the examples. Coercing an arbitrary pointer from void to byte doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s lipstick on a pig at best.

All pointers in C/C++ can point to “nothing”. Swapping “void *” for “byte *” is basically an aesthetic choice.

> whereas with std::span you get more of a hint what's going on just based on the type

You don’t if it’s a span of bytes (or equivalent).

Encoding the length in a span is a meaningful thing. But the fact that it holds a random memory pointer labeled “byte” instead of “void” doesn’t change anything.

> instead of no type, as is normal in Ruby, or `void`, which is the C equivalent*

“void *” is not the equivalent of “no type” from Ruby. “void *” says “I operate on raw memory”. It says exactly the same thing as “byte *”.

For sure you should generally not write a function that accepts a “void *” and then internally casts it to some concrete pointer type and operates on that type, but the problem there is the internal behavior, not the choice of byte vs void pointer.

You’re really citing a mess in a Ruby code base caused by lack of typing as evidence for why void * is problematic in C/C++?

These are so wildly different cases that the comparison isn’t meaningful. This is like saying you should wear a helmet while playing tennis because sometimes helmets save bicyclists lives.

You ended up getting a fresh grad because you asked for 4+ years of experience both broad and deep.

150-200k is probably reasonable for a new grad in the bay (not certain what starting salaries there are now) but not for what you actually asked for.

I’m not hating on you. Your budget is what it is. But you’re well under market and that’s why you didn’t get the applicants you wanted.

> Some people genuinely go online just to complain.

This is literally you in this thread.

I don’t know why you’re so uncharitable toward someone who holds a different opinion than you. The idea that someone needs to research device dimensions in order to share their personal experience with foldables is a bit much. Instead of accusing them of complaining for the “dopamine hit”, you could have said “hey, your experience is out of date”.

That’s what jayd16 did, and then you rolled in with a complaint about people who complain, which is pretty rich.

People beat the hell out of cables. People yank on cables to unplug instead of the connectors, wad them up in the bottom of a bag and drop books on them, etc.

I don’t think I’ve ever had an Apple cable fail, all the way back to the 30 pin.

Or maybe they haven’t held the very latest. The 6 was notably thicker.

You don’t see an excess of workers because the compensation was too low. Your requirements were such that you were realistically competing with Meta and Google offers for $400k+ and $200k was your max possible compensation.

He posted on another comment. They were offering way under market. Shocking, really.

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Page 18 is the tax vs penalty discussion I referred to.

> They argued several dumb points, you’ll have to narrow it down.

Arguing that the fee is a “penalty” in this case seems pointlessly dumb.

Seems like they should have argued the fee a “fee”.

So I actually agree with you here. America has a deep, ugly pit of unconstrained racism, and a less deep pit of quiet racism that permeates a lot of society. But so do many (and very possibly most) other nations, where the level of racism is often even worse, just with different targets than Americans. I think in a way America is much more aware of our tendencies than other nations.

From what I can tell with a quick reading, it is not. The opinion states that the fee is a tax and not a penalty and based on that ruling then further rules that the tax oversteps Congress’s delegated authority.

The whole penalty thing seems weird because obviously it’s not a penalty, so I don’t know if the president’s lawyers argued a dumb point and lost or if I’m missing some legal nuance here.

Regardless, the opinion is based on the ruling that the fee amounts to a tax, not that fees must be justified.

> Fees have to be justified

Do they? Honest question. Is there a law that says fees must be in some sense justified?

> Calling something a fee doesn't make it a fee if, in substance, it operates like a tax.

This seems like a nonsense response to GP. They gave a definition of fee vs tax that is based on a meaningful distinction and not what it happens to be called.

When you pay income tax (for example), your personal benefit from that tax is no different from my benefit from your income tax. But if you pay a passport fee (for example), you receive a specific benefit that I do not.

“Graph go up to the right. Graph stop at edge of paper. Must go up forever!”

Now this I disagree with. I expect that you are interacting with a specific subset of Americans. A lot of Americans are deeply racist and xenophobic and I believe that the average could definitely get lower.

Okay, but the conversation was:

Meken: “I would be biased”

Sashank: “I disagree”

Others being more biased doesn’t make Americans unbiased.

This seems like xenophobia masked as sustainability. The article indicates the referendum specifically would block immigrants but not, say, require free birth control for citizens. Interesting how narrow the target is if sustainability is the real goal.

You’re responding to an American who says he’d be biased towards Americans and telling him he’s wrong.

Maybe Americans are the least biased (though being an American I am not so sure) but that doesn’t mean we aren’t biased (even if sometimes for legitimate reasons like ease of communication).

> Lionel Messi, the greatest soccer player of all time is only 5'7 - that should tell you something.

One data point doesn’t tell me anything. Cristiano Ronaldo, also frequently in the “GOAT” conversation is 6’2”.

On Argentina’s national team, literally no one is shorter than Messi. 17 of the players (20 with keepers) are taller than the Argentinian average male height with only 6 below.

> they usually max out around 6'3, but that's only for certain specialized positions like a striker, or central defender

Specialized positions like “all of them”. There are literally no positions in soccer where it is advantageous to be short. There are simply positions where it is less of a disadvantage.

> Above that and you are too big and too slow, smaller players will quite literally run circles around you.

I’m the same height as Messi so I would love to believe that there is some athletic advantage to being short, but it’s just not true. Messi is outstanding in spite of his height, not because of it.

Short people are not faster than tall people, not even very tall people. Maybe in the extreme outliers this is true, but Usain Bolt is 6’5”.