elefantastisch

This is why despite being a huge user of forums in decades past, I've essentially stopped posting anything on the internet. It's not just about the quality of discussion going down, it's just this... emptiness. In the real world, when you are talking to someone, you are exchanging ideas but also getting to know them as a person. That's a lot harder to find these days.

Then combine that with the relentless push to get everyone identifying themselves with a single identity tied to their real name... And the rampant abuse of people who do so... And it's just like... Why?

Making a real human connection requires some level of vulnerability. Someone can't get to know you if you completely hide who you are. But the level of doxxing, and harassing, and trading in personal data to spam you with ads for crap you aren't evenly slightly interested in, that's the price you pay now for being open. And in return, you get to have "discussions" with drive-by commenters who you'll never hear from again and may just be deliberately antagonizing you. Or they may just be bots trying to stir up rage.

Obscure communities solve some of these problems, but they are still open to drive-by trolls and privacy violators. There is simply no space on the public internet where you can find a real community and make real friends without a real risk of being abused by random people outside of that community, using your posts to target you for advertising or harassment.

And this doesn't even get into "likes" and this insane idea of being literally judged for everything you contribute to the community. This isn't how human community works at all. So I've all but opted out of using the internet for anything but consumption.

For anyone wanting to undertake analysis like this, a fairly common choice of text for comparing languages is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is translated into a staggering number of languages.

See https://www.ohchr.org/en/udhr/pages/introduction.aspx

My intention is not to argue that the usage is inappropriate. Sure, it's probably obvious from my post that I think it is, but that's not the argument I was trying to make. And I'm certainly not trying to silence anyone (as the other replier pointed out one should not) because of their word choice. I didn't downvote/flag any of what I'm replying to.

The argument I'm trying to make is first that it's not arbitrary to question the use of this word but not "kill" or other violent words. There is a distinction because of the specificity and linguistic contexts in which the word is used.

And second that because it's not arbitrary, the complaints from survivors are also not arbitrary and should be considered--not taken as absolute unassailable truth, but considered.

For comparison, I can imagine those who lost loved ones in the infamous Air France Flight 447 might be upset to be reminded of Air France. But Air France is a 10+ billion euro company operating hundreds if not thousands of flights per day. It is stunningly rare that "Air France" is used to refer to that accident and on balance, I think most would conclude Air France is of positive or neutral impact to the world. I would be quite suspect of an argument that "Air France" is inappropriate language.

On the other extreme you have a term like "Holocaust" which effectively has no other meaning or usage than a reference to that genocide.

Now you may conclude that no usage of any word is inherently inappropriate, and if that's the case, we're simply at an impasse, and I'm fine with that. I won't try to stop you or change your mind. But for most people, I think there is a point where the triviality of the use and the severity of the word add up to inappropriateness.

It's not clear-cut. You'd probably be hard pressed to find anyone genuinely bothered by "killing" a process. But you also won't find too many people who would defend say... being kicked out of a bar for causing a drunken fight being described as being persecuted like in the Holocaust. There's a spectrum.

So my point is just this... there are some logical reasons why many people consider a usage like this article on the inappropriate side of the spectrum. We can at least acknowledge that and recognize that there's a legitimate judgment call to be made here. We aren't in "killing a process" territory. And we certainly aren't in arbitrary word policing because we happen to be bothered by it territory.

Unless of course you fundamentally disagree that any metaphor could be inappropriate because of the thing which is alluded to in the metaphor. In which case we're just starting from different fundamental assumptions, which is fine. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's values.

I'll end here. There are obviously legitimate grievances in the article regardless of the word choice in titling it, and I've done enough to derail the discussion of those already. For that, I apologize.

At issue is not whether analogies and metaphors are a type of morally equating. At issue is whether it is appropriate to use a particularly severe term in a decidedly less severe manner.

"Kill" is used in many less severe circumstances. We kill plants and mold and bacteria. "Kill" does not nearly universally refer a specific severe act with a real human victim. Notice we don't murder programs.

Regardless of historical usage (words do not have some innate meaning which persists through all time), the current usage of the word is almost exclusively limited to a very particular crime. A better comparison would be "genocide". We should ask ourselves how we would feel about a company transitioning from cross-platform to a single OS being described as committing a genocide of other OS users. Or even better, we should ask actual survivors of genocide how they would feel.

And in this case, survivors are already telling us how they feel. For example: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/stop-saying-rape-out-of-conte...

There are terms which because of their specificity and severity (in modern usage) cannot be used metaphorically without calling to mind the non-metaphorical meaning. This is quite distinct from more standard metaphors which we barely recognize as metaphors at all (no one thinks of a sprinter when we ask them to run a program).

Regardless of what decision we end up making on what terms we are comfortable using, we can recognize that not all violent terms are equal in how concretely they call to mind their violent meaning when used metaphorically and that victims of violence are speaking out about the usage of certain terms. How we should respond to that is a judgment call we all have to make.

Here's a reference: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

"We don't collect or share personal information" seems perfectly sufficient to me.

You probably breathe atoms from Elvis in every single breath you take.

https://futurism.com/estimating-how-many-molecules-you-breat...

The stated purpose from the site is to be able to match songs on a playlist, so like keep a consistent bpm across an entire playlist. If that was your goal, you'd presumably want the dotted-quarter bpm for 6/8 instead of the eighth. For a listener, the feel of the song is going to be based on when the kicks and snares come, not how things are divided up within those beats. That's what I was trying to get at, but man it's hard to put a description of time signature into plain text.

It seems they just don't understand time signatures.

Andy Williams "It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year" is listed as 202 bpm. In some sense, this is correct. The song is in 6/8 time and if you count each of the six beats separately, there are 202 bpm, but this isn't how 6/8 works. Typically you would set the bpm based on a dotted quarter (= 3/8ths) instead of a quarter.

From a listener's perspective, 6/8 basically just means each beat is divided into 3 parts instead of 2. So in a "normal" 4/4 song, you'll hear a down-up, down-up repetition like KICK-up-SNARE-up-KICK-up-SNARE-up, with kick drums on downbeats of 1 and 3 and snare on downbeats of 2 and 4 with one upbeat after each. With 6/8, you'll hear KICK-up-up-SNARE-up-up basically.

(Note that this is distinct from 3/4 [waltz], where you'll hear KICK-up-SNARE-up-SNARE-up, but 3/4 is exceeding rare in popular modern music.)

You can also just download pre-trained models. Get those set up and then install Sabaki (https://sabaki.yichuanshen.de/) and connect it to your KataGo... instant (ok, a few hours probably if it's your first time setting it up) superhuman Go AI. There's even an npm package you can use to process SGF files and automatically score moves as good/questionable/bad + generate variations that were better choices: https://github.com/9beach/analyze-sgf/blob/master/README.en-...

(Edit: Misread what the other poster was trying to do, but I'm leaving this here as a reference for anyone else who just wants to use KataGo on their own machine on their own Go games.)

I want to know that a junior candidate:

* Can actually produce something

* Cares about the craft of software development (learning the why behind things instead of just copy-pasting examples until it works)

* Has the initiative to be self-directed (learning and growing and pushing through obstacles instead of just waiting for someone to tell them answers)

* Understands how to work with other humans

Everything else will come naturally if the above are true. What will make someone stand out is showing that they are outstanding in one of the above categories. Almost any side project will show the first category. A side project that involves some complexity under the hood that you can talk about and talk about the struggles of learning it is even better because it can show some of the others.

Tailwind also offers curated (and curatable) styles instead of a free-for-all. You can set up Tailwind to exactly provide the levels of spacing, colors, fonts, etc. that you want for your design system. Tailwind is in some ways like inline CSS, but enhanced inline CSS that you can customize the options of precisely for your project/team/company. You don't have to use text-xs, text-sm, text-lg. You can use text-fineprint, text-prose, text-inyourface and configure them to be exactly the size you want. And then of course, you can change the definition of those styles in one place and have it propagate throughout your project. This is where Tailwind starts to move well beyond inline CSS.

Check out eggbun and lingodeer. They're both pretty good, one might work for you.

TTMIK is my fav resource for Korean. Not an app though, just audio courses / books.

Agreed. It seems like a lot of people don't understand that dark mode is an accessibility issue for many people. If I couldn't use dark mode for the majority of my apps, I probably couldn't be a developer. Even with a monitor with a blue light filter and carefully adjusting the brightness and contrast to be as gentle on my eyes as possible, some days, my eyes are sensitive enough that even 15 minutes on light mode apps causes blurry vision and headaches. Dark mode I can use all day, no problem.

Man, I didn't even realize there was a demo until I read this. Looked all over for it. That "try it" message needs to be a lot more prominent, I think.

This looks really really slick. The signup process only worked for me if I turned off tracking protection in Firefox.

One bug, entering hex code aggressively tries to convert 3 digit into 6 digit. So you can't actually type a 6-digit hex code because as soon as you type the first 3 digits, it expands it into 6, so you have to like backspace and mess around with it to get the color you want.

It would also be nice to have more flexibility in syntax highlighting section. Not everyone wants to group things in the same way for setting colors.

This.

Yev, if you are not in the upper management chain of Backblaze, please show mnw21cam's message to someone who is.

The problem is not that there was a little bug which caused the Facebook tracker to get a few little pieces of information it shouldn't have.

The problem is that Backblaze failed to understand how to distinguish appropriate and inappropriate uses of third-party trackers for signed-in users on a security-critical application. The Facebook pixel should never have been there at all. It shouldn't even have been considered. It should've been an absolute no-brainer that Facebook has no business being on secure pages on a critical infrastructure service for paying customers.

The fact that the pixel even showed up at all on a logged in page represents a breach of trust for customers and casts doubt on Backblaze's competence in handling security issues. This warrants a serious reply from the CEO, not a copy-pasted meaningless reassurance.

I started down the path of building a simple version of this at one point. One thing I discovered is the necessity of marking some time as busy within the window for an event. If I have a 2 hour block free for a 1 hour lunch, someone could still schedule a meeting which makes my lunch impossible, like a hour meeting starting 30 minutes in. That would leave two 30 minute chunks on either side, and I can no longer have my 1 hour lunch.

The solution is to preemptively block key times which guarantee you can still schedule your flexible task. In this case, you need to block 30 minutes (or whatever your smallest schedulable unit of time is) in the middle of the 2 hour window, either right before or right after the midpoint. This will leave the maximal amount of schedulable time while still guaranteeing no single event can wreck your lunch.

Just an observation in case it's useful to the founders here.

Board Game Arena is a good option.

See also http://clagnut.com/blog/2380/

It's a shame how few of these prevent horizontal scroll on mobile. Usually the table and/or video are not probably handled. My take away from this: Simple does not mean easy; check edge cases.

Or maybe just have year go from 00-99 and repeat as people commonly do anyway.

Current implementation of year definitely doesn't make sense because it doesn't cycle.

This is pretty interesting to me: https://projectfluent.org/

Absolutely not.

Your colleague's career decisions are none of your business. Their relationship with management is none of your business.

Beyond that, the relationship between employee and employer should be professional. Professionals understand that people--even important people--sometimes leave, and they plan for that. Thinking you need to look out for the company is a misunderstanding of how the professional world works. If the company wanted to ensure a certain term of employment or provide some fallback in the event of someone wanting to leave, they would have written that into the contract and paid accordingly. They didn't, so they've knowingly accepted the risk of this person leaving.

Why do I need to grant access to my GitHub account to view a tutorial?

GoldenEye 007 for N64 came out the year before HL and was pretty popular and had a good campaign mode.

"Firsts" are often a bit fuzzy.

To the point of "honest people": I added "honest" in editing to distinguish from people who are just arguing because they like fighting and wouldn't agree if you told them 2 + 2 = 4. There are plenty of those online too, and their reasons for disagreeing clearly aren't covered by my "reasons people disagree" principle.

But as I understood you, point taken. The distillation of principles, information, and interpretation into an opinion does not actually occur as idealized in my breakdown. I wouldn't disagree with that.

Meta-comment:

Thank you. Online discussion would be much more productive if everyone clearly laid out the principles on which their viewpoint was based.

Fundamentally, there are only a few ways honest people can disagree: Different principles, different information, different interpretation, or just plain misunderstanding. (Meta-meta: This is the principle that I believe and based this comment on.)

Much of what makes online (and offline) arguments so unproductive is confusion over where exactly people are disagreeing in the first place. There's no point in discussing whether someone did the right or wrong thing if you don't even agree on the principles by which that rightness or wrongness will be judged.

If I disagree with one of your principles, we need the discussion to be at that level, or more likely, we simply must agree to disagree. If I think there's another principle you aren't considering, we can debate its relevance. If you're missing key information, I can provide it. If you're misinterpreting something, I can offer my alternate interpretation and justification for why I think it's better. In any case, if I disagree, it's clear how to proceed because your line of reasoning is clear. We can engage in a productive discussion without talking past each other.

As it stands, I agree with you 100%, but more importantly, you have raised the bar for discussion on this contentious issue. Thank you again.

https://coolors.co/ can suggest colors to go with user-entered colors.

No affiliation, just a tool I've used.

0.01% per day is not 3.65% per year. It's close, but that's not the correct way to combine probabilities. (If it were, flipping a coin twice would be guaranteed to produce a head because 50% + 50% = 100%)

For calculating probabilities, it's much easier to work in fractions than percentages, so I'll convert 0.01% to 0.0001 and equivalent for other percentages for the remainder of this comment.

If every day of the year, 0.01% of cars are broken into, the probably of being broken into is 0.0001 and the probably of being safe is 0.9999. To calculate the odds for a year, you need to take the being safe probability to the 365th power (0.9999^365). That gives 0.9642. This is the probability of being safe from break-ins for a year. You can subtract from 1 for the annual odds of being broken into: 0.0358.

0.01% per day is 3.58% per year. Also can continue to get longer term odds. Break-in chance is 30% over 10 years. At 19 years, it's 50/50 whether you'll be broken into. At this term, you get a big deviation from the incorrect calculation, which would give 0.01 * 19 * 365 = 69.35% chance of break-in over 19 years.

Of course, this ignores the uneven distribution of break-ins, etc., etc.

The comment about cyborg chess is spot on.

This is why AI is more significant to Go than horses and cars are to running.

It's easy for humans to build machines that enable them to travel faster than they could run, but it has zero impact on running as a sport. The existence of cars doesn't change how runners run. But the existence of AI does change how Go players play.

Now that AI is more powerful than human players in chess, it is no longer possible to reach the top of human performance in chess without AI. That's why this is so significant. It's not that a human can't beat the AI. It's that a human can't beat another human without learning from the AI. You simply can't play chess at the highest levels anymore without playing cyborg chess. This is different from the impact of other machines on other sports.

But I disagree with you on the comparison to how we use the internet to enhance our other abilities, such as programming. Computers help us be better programmers, but they can't replace us. AI completely replaces humans as a Go player. The human is no longer needed at all.

I can see this causing a significantly different psychological response. In effect, a human trying to become the best chess player or best go player they can become is trying to more and more closely emulate a computer that they will never actually reach parity with. Another commenter noted that "A Professional Go player is an explorer of truth in a millenarian board", but this is less and less true as AI improves. All knowledge about the best way to play Go was previously gained by humans. In 20 years, humans will probably be meaningless on driving knowledge of perfect Go playing.

Chess players today rely on playing moves which their opponents don't expect and haven't trained on as much as they rely on outplaying their opponents. If there is a perfect chess game or a perfect go game, humans are not going to help find it anymore.

So AI doesn't make it that humans can't meaningfully compete in games such as chess and go, but it does change how they compete. We no longer drive the pursuit of perfect play as "explorers of truth". We no longer learn primarily from each other, we learn by imitating the more powerful, yet unmatchable, AIs. And we no longer compete primarily on sheer expertise in the game. We have to, in some sense, include trick plays that work by exploiting the humanity of our opponents rather than playing for a platonic ideal of the game and seeing who is better from that perspective.

AI has fundamentally and irreversibly altered these games, and I think it's appropriate in some sense to mourn the loss, regardless of our feelings on the new reality we live in.