Do people at conferences buy coffee by SSH'ing into coffee shop servers?
1,301 karma · joined June 6, 2012
I wonder how you figure out when your codebase has reached 95% safety? Or is it OK to stop looking for memory unsafety when you hit, say, 92% safe?
It wasn't an easter egg; it was how the games accessed and played the in-game music (and digitized speech when that was a new, exciting thing). There would be one huge data track and then dozens of small audio tracks. If the game did take multiple CDs, then either (a) you installed all the discs but all the audio was on the CD that had to be in the drive for the game to play or (b) each CD had the audio needed for the levels that were on that disc (I think that scenario was more common on PS1 games, but I could be mis-remembering)
In theory that sponsorship money could stay local, if the people who saved money by buying cars direct from Ford gave it personally to the local sports teams instead of giving it to Bob first.
No, it's like finding out your neighbor sold a bunch of faulty locks to a bunch of other people. There's a difference between information that would benefit only one person (the neighbor in your analogy) and information that would benefit many people (the neighbor's customers in my analogy)
It's a nice poetic conceit to think of good ideas as thriving in the light like flowers while bad ideas flourish in the darkness like mushrooms, but they both thrive on the same thing -- attention. To make another comparison with things that grow in the shadows: the crawlspace under my front porch is full of bugs and critters, but they didn't get there because I cast them out of my house, and I don't keep my house bug-free by periodically inviting them in for debates.
Yes[1]
And other people had an XT that they installed an expansion card into -- like the Pfaster-286[1]
[1]https://books.google.com/books?id=xsMx9D2s6y0C&pg=PA43&lpg=P...
More than the internal injuries that could be caused by water forcibly entering the vagina? Probably not.
This must vary by state; I recently took out a small loan from my local bank in Pennsylvania and the information I went home with came out to about 15 pages.
>When you're dealing with huge amounts of yellow tape and you have millions of customers
I thought the conventional wisdom was that onerous regulation actually favored huge businesses with "millions of customers" -- for example, the effort of having to "print that, audit it, have lawyers look it over, maintain it" is a fixed cost so the cost per customer is smaller for larger banks.
If the results of a newly-introduced selection pressure can be explained by darwinism / natural selection, then surely so can the results of a removal of selection pressure.
For example, if there are genes that result in lowered fear or agression, and that leads to fewer offspring for wild mice, they will have a lower frequency in a wild mouse population than in a population where they don't lead to fewer offspring. I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem like this particular article requires any additional mechanisms beyond natural selection.
>...talent would understand what events are more likely to succeed...
If we already know that these things are the result of talent and not luck, and if it's a foregone conclusion that the model gives an "oversized role" to luck, then I guess these kinds of investigation are doomed from the start.
Dictionaries have included metaphorical definitions for ... at least 60 years? I have a 1958 Webster's that defines "feather in one's cap" and "hard row to hoe" and probably quite a few more.
[1] You could have probably guessed that the name was going to be "programming", but it might not have been.
Unless you believe that the rites were created to address the problem of "one day, there will be analgesics with antiandrogen effects, so we'll have a few centuries of practice at enduring extreme pain", then I don't see how there could be any connection.
And if your version of the test is "heads it's an AI, tails it's human" then any AI's that are classified as human will have "passed the Turing test."
Even if you're locating it by sound, you probably don't want to stumble around in the dark while you're trying to find it. So you turn on the lights, and you can't find it because it stopped chirping. Then after you turn off the lights, it starts back up, so you turn the lights back on, etc.
In the article, the author's name at the top is actually a link to a short bio[1] which seems like it has enough information to identify him.
[1]https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/DougPearson/1021383/
No, I just don't agree that the author's experience generalizes to other women.
>Just be interested in what she is working on based on the merits or her work.
And what of people like the event manager in the article who are interested in other aspects of her career? Shouldn't we practice "acceptance, inclusiveness, and diversity" toward them also?
She describes having grown up in a culture where that experience is normal, but that is not necessarily the same culture that she is working in now.
Yes, but it's the personal experience of someone who has never "had to defend their choice of or fight an uphill battle while selecting engineering as a career choice". Which makes it seem like more of an "argument by outlier" than the expression of some deep universal insight-- yes, maybe Mallika doesn't appreciate someone listening to her talk as "being supportive", but maybe women who have had to fight an uphill battle would appreciate the show of solidarity and the chance afterwards to swap war stories.
(I do agree that it was unfair to flag the article.)
Do you think there's a difference between thinking you have to be a woman because you want (for example) to be a nurse, and thinking you have to be a woman because you want to be a woman?
I think in Finland official taxis say "TAKSI" and have a yellow sign on the roof, so maybe they might suspect any unofficial-looking car with a driver in the front and the sole passenger in the back as being an Uber.
But that's already the case. There are people right now who will live longer than others because they have access to better healthcare.[1] Why should it be strictly better (addressing only your point b) for the situation to change from "people with an average lifespan plus people who live 10 years longer" to "people with the same average lifespan plus people who live 20 years longer"?
Or in other words, is longevity some sort of unalloyed good? Is arithemtic the only tool needed to judge the merits of life extension? Another comment asked us to consider what would happen if Einstein were still alive; maybe there are some other people whose continued existence would not have been a net benefit to humanity?
[1]Yes, as mentioned elsewhere in these comments, people on welfare have access to some healthcare, but after going from a premium employer-paid insurance plan to what's available under my state's Medicaid expansion, I can guarantee that the former has a higher standard of care.
Which doesn't really matter unless you have a time machine that can send them back 50 years. At least, none of the poor people I've known (including myself) have ever said "I can't afford to give my children better opportunities, let alone leave them something in my will, but hey! at least they'll have nifty pocket computers!"