jVinc

This is such a weird drama. The way I read it SD was effectively trying to put pressure on a guy because he developed a popular UI for using SD, and made that UI also support another model. So all their moral grandstanding is effectively just about trying to keep the popular gateway site pointing only at them, but their throwing shit at the guy who gave them that huge free PR push... What an odd position, but understandable, it looks like the people behind SD are a bunch of amateurs who weren't ready for the widespread attention and rather than ride the wave they are trying to shut down the beaches to claim that they own the ocean.

What a worth of space piece. It basically just boils down to the author being annoyed that other people visit popular sites too.

If you don't like other tourists, don't travel to tourist destinations. It's that simple. You don't travel to France and get annoyed that there are french people, well guess what, tourist destinations have tourists, that's a given, and it's a given everywhere, and it has nothing to do with instagram, Facebook or "this generation" it's just basic dumb fact.

But why though?

Lets assume just for the sake of argument that Magnus has insider information from chess.com making him 98% certain that Niemann is cheating.

Why would he hand him a game that's going to be watched worldwide, where Magnus has nothing to win. Since if he wins we really still don't know anything one way or the other. But he also has everything to lose. If Hans is cheating and manages to pull off something again, then Magnus is cripeling his own reputation.

Magnus seems to be doing the right thing here, which is voicing his concerns, refusing to play him, and asking Niemann for permission to speak on the matter fully. Niemann is doing what you'd expect of a cheater, which is to stay quiet, dismiss the discussions, having difficulty explaining his plays, and pretty much just holding back from letting chess.com or Magnus divulge what information they have from the inside of his bans.

> I am disappointed with Magnus. He is misusing the weight of his reputation even if cheating is a big deal in chess.

I think the unspoken truth but also the thing both chess.com and Magnus are hinting at is that Niemann has cheated a lot more than he lets on, perhaps his entire stream was built on cheating, who knows. But chess.com can't just start sharing information like that, and they are walking a fine line just with their public statement where they affirmatively assert that Niemann is underplaying the reality of his cheating. Magnus probably has insider information from chess.com but is bound by NDA and this is also why he's now challenging Niemann to give him permission to speak on the matter.

I see where you're coming from, if the formulas end up having weird numbers like 535.4916 or numbers like 2.718 or 6.28318 then obviously there's something suspicious about the equation. But small correction though. You got the number wrong, it's actually much more weird than any of those mentioned. The actual equation you come to for ncos an nsin is:

(-1)^(2x) = ncos(x) + i nsin(x)

And yes, -1 is a very weird number. If you take it to the power of something divisible by 2 you get itself raised to zero. What's up with this spooky periodicity? Also if you have x=1/4, then we get weird numbers like sqrt(-1) what on earth is that all about? No way that will fly, no way. No I'll take my 2.718^((-1)^(1/2)) and multiply through with 6.28318 that way I don't have to bother understanding what I'm doing I can sleep comfortable at night knowing that someone else has done all the thinking that needs to be done on the matter, and that turns or rotations are a blasphemous concept that breaks the very concept of math through scaling of an axis. You'd think math was strong enough to withstand such a minor change, but the textbooks do not mention it thus it must not be contemplated!

It seems obvious really. Weird Al makes parody songs, of cause the movie was going to end up being a parody movie.

It would be interesting to see how such a challenge evolves, because if you do include inspection, then you really just have a no-inspection solve time. And the question becomes how often does it help to do inspections and when do you start doing solves with look ahead along the way.

> How many meters did Usain Bolt have to run in training before he ran his 100 meter record winning run.

That's not really an accurate comparison. The current setup is more akin to a 100m running challenge where he was allowed to run 50m before starting the actual 100m to get up to speed.

The inspection time is not training, it's literally the time spent solving the cube.

I feel like a lot of what's in the category of "you wont believe this is getting popular" on tiktok is a result of them faking views and follower numbers to rope in creators who then go on to think tens of thousands of people are watching them do some random videos, which makes them double down and focus and then eventually gain a real but still much lower real following.

I don't have any evidence to back up the claim that they are faking views, but I know for a fact that the hundreds of followers I have gained making almost no content are not real. And it seems extremely suspicious that they've engineered their whole "creator fund" around trying to not pay creators based just on views/likes and subs, if they where real that would be the most accurate measure to target. But feels like they've decided to completely ignore them and to "sort" creators, likely because they know there's some creators with majorly fake followers that they don't want to pay, but still want to keep on the platform so they keep their fake engagement metrics high, and then there's the "real" popular names that they know they need to pay, but still underpay compared to other platforms. But creators still stick to tiktok because "they have a much larger following". It smells.

> most banks are highly levered, meaning they're lending out, say, 10× the cash they hold, so they never "have too much cash on hand".

Reconsider what your stating here. If I have 10$, and I can therefore lend out 100$, but I only have requests to borrow 50$, then I have "too much cash". If I however had requests to borrow 200$, the I would need to find another 10$, for instance by promising someone a higher interest rate on their accounts. The fact that banks do fractional reserve does in no way guarantee that they do not end up having more cash on hand than they need to cover the demand for loans.

Great, now do Roblox and Fortnight. And youtube for that matter.

What exactly is the bikeshed here? Naturally Python doesn't use the newest standards the second they are released because that would be chaos. So they need to consider when they use newer standards. In this case they found bugs and had a discussion that ended in everyone supporting adopting a newer standard.

What exactly do you feel is the "which color should the shed be" point of this discussion?

I feel like this is twisting numbers. The fact that 60% are "impuls buys" doesn't mean you are "tricked into buying more". If someone is renovating or moving, then they might go to Ikea to find a new bed or a new sofa, and then find they also need a sofa table, or bed table that they had not planned to buy. This is typically what we do, we don't make a full list of what we need ahead of time, we know some major parts, and then we browse and pick up more things we need. That might mean that 60% of what we buy wasn't "planned" but we weren't tricked into buying more stuff, we just figured out what we wanted along the way.

Naturally this makes the layout of Ikea important, because if you never go through the lighting department, you're not going to remember that you'd actually been wanting a desklamp and pick one out. But this isn't some sort of clever psychological hack thats tricking you into buying a lamp you don't need.

> how do you "suddenly" die of Crohn's?

Why do you want to know? I know a doctor in India who can help arrange that if you need this kind of service. He's not cheap though. /s

If your neighborhood decides for whatever reason that your IOU's are worth what is printed on them or even increasing values over time, then you can generate a lot of cash, and looking from the outside it will look like everyone in the neighborhood is getting filthy rich because all their market caps and transactions sizes will be going through the roof. And you can comfortably say that you have your IOU's backed 1:1 in things of equal value, by just printing 2 everything you hand one out and keeping one, which will naturally be as valuable as the other right? Or you can use one of them to buy BTC/Ether/whatever on your own exchange, whatever, point is that you can keep the value backed in theory because you have a money printing press. This works as long as money is flooding into the system, and there is enough trust in your IOUs.

But what you can't do is try to use IOU printing to guard against the values of your IOU's falling, it just doesn't make sense when Timmy comes by and says "I want my $10k, here's the IOUs" that you say "Ok, wait a second, I have like $20k worth of IOU's I could give you instead, would that make you happy?". Because you aren't proping up the value of the IOU's, your just devaluing them faster.

> What kinds of slick jedi-mind-tricks is Robin using to keep the OP from going after him and instead pleading with Upwork conflict resolution drones?

The absolute center of the problem here seems to be that Upwork has engineered a system where Robin is not in any way involved with this case. This is a case of a credit card owner creating a chargeback request against a developer. The fact that the developer can prove that the payments where given for delivered work doesn't matter to Upwork, because when they took that proof to the bank of the credit card owner and said "See there is proof services where provided for the payments" the owner said "I did not request that work".

Back in reality, this is absolutely a problem for Upwork, and a problem that really should be at the very core of their business. If people can successfully chargeback any amount of money at any time scale because they payed with a creditcard they don't own, every single start-up should start making borrowing circles of credit cards for their first 10 years of development so they can claw it all back if they go bust and need to pivot. The very core of upworks business is to establish a truth worthy process for payment for services, and in this case where the process fails they are simply going "Oh, to bad for you, now go do the dishes until you've payed for the bill of the dinner dashers who just sprinted out after legally agreeing to pay your dinner as payment for 2 years work".

It's not Web 3.0, that was the semantic web, which also aimed in some sense to be decentralized data but wasn't about turning the internet itself into a vehicle for ridicules investment ponzi-schemes. The "new" one is Web3

Personally I would say that the downvote features is extremely useful and valuable. Especially on Hackernews, as it helps to protect the community standards which are quite different from for instance reddit or other tech discussion sites. You very rarely see anything like blatant flamebate, trolling or flamewars, because they quickly get downvoted and grayed out, and are generally ignored instead of going to the top of a thread because "controversy increases engagement".

Why would you check a message left by spammers?

This is as perfect example of just how horribly bad the typical "X does not exist" examples are, because here we all know the pool that is being used for training and can call out shitty "creations" for what they are. For instance I got "diaminoid" and "interchangerability". It's extremely transparent just how bad it is. But when people do it with faces, you don't see this, because you don't know the training set so you can't compare. Every attempt at showing "how great ML is at generating completely new X" owes it to the people wasting their time being fooled into thinking that it actually works to always also show the closest couple of entries from the training set.

When looking at IQ increase over time, you control for education and socioeconomic factors, otherwise you're just drawing conclusions from those factors.

You're trying to make an argument as to why the placebo indirectly could have had an actual effect, but this is exactly what the study showed that id did not have. There was no effect, only a reported improvement which did not correspond to an actual improvement.

eg. "Study reported the subject did not see any red apples, only green" and your asking "Maybe the subject was wearing tinted glasses that could made a green apple seem red?"

The answer is obviously no, that cannot be the case, because that would have led to an observed red apple, and there was no such observation. Just like there was no observed improvement in the asthmatic response from the placebo, then it's also obvious that there was no indirect improvement from emotional ease, because if that was the case, then there had to have been an observed improvement.

> "hmm I'm here and waiting, and all I can do is watch paint dry" seems to have vanished.

Theres several influencers whose whole bit is centered around mixing paint, and I don't know how many channels on youtube dedicated to the sound it makes when you cut sand with a knife. So don't despair, I'm absolutely certain there is a channel out there dedicated to watching paint dry, on demand in byte size vids with tons of userengagement, for those long drives when you just want to pull the plug and watch paint dry.

Interesting research, even if it isn't something you'd immediately assume would go into commercial products. The fact that they see a weight decrease simply from adding calorie free weight to the food is interesting to me. I knew different foods can have vastly satiety at the same calorie count, but I would not assume that this could be simply due to a weight or volume difference. I would more have assumed that our bodies response to breaking down the foods would regulate our hunger to aim for a given amount of energy intake.

This is a great study in tech debt, bad attitudes and work arounds.

That said, I think this will be a great benefit to python, I often end up mistyping only to curse at the stupid computer that knows exactly what i ment yet, does not do it. I'm sure it's going to be a good fit for python4, and that it'll help students when adoption rolls around in 10-15 years.

Yes, if you click the link the first section is a brief overview, but if you skip that the second section has an Executive Summary.

Traditional DevOps is when sysadmins checks their scrips into git. Modern DevOps is when they check scripts into git using a really fancy web interface.

> Why is it that people who raise merge requests can approve their own request ? Is there a way to disable this?

Sounds like you've configured your repo to allow developers to merge, which is not the default, otherwise you are adding everyone as maintainers. The typical setup is that developers can make merge requests to protected branches, but only maintainers can merge.

> Who exactly is the assignee?

That's up to you to define really. In the system whoever is assigned is the person who gets the ticket in their overview. For our workflows most just keep it unset and someone picks it up on their own. Unless they know for certain which maintainer will be handling the merge request.

> I don't have a pipeline setup yet, but I don't want it to run in the first place (and fail)

I'm not sure what you're asking here, if you don't have a pipeline defined what is it that you don't want to run? Could you have auto-DevOps enabled perchance without wanting it? It can be disabled under "Settings>CI/CD"

I get why they are shutting it down. I and many like me only use one button on our remote, the power button. Everything else is on my truly universal remote, my smartphone. If my tv was able to turn on and off from my phone, then I'd never touch a remote again.

Seems obvious that the CFO was the main driver of the raid against the states, also in a position to easily blow up everything, so he takes the majority stake of the pillaging.