notjoemama

Does XKCD take suggestions?

A. We don't fully understand this and our responses are incorrect. Let's build an AI system to help us.

B. We'll give it data from online which is limited, temporal, and to the same degree as humans; incorrect.

C. Then we'll build an algorithm based on the generalized structure of the human brain, which, is regularly wrong.

D. We don't fully understand this and our responses are incorrect.

Your comment is gray. Isn't that because someone downvoted it? I don't think they voted correctly. I think your comment is meaningful and helps further discussion. Maybe they just don't know the rules of voting.

I might not like two people screaming at each other in public, but me calling the police says a lot more about my over sensitivity and lack of understanding / exposure to life, than whether there is something needing police intervention in public.

I could write a very long blog post showing how over sensitivity in society has become toxic to well being and trust.

> Not everyone's goal is to progress a society though.

Thank you. That was my initial thought too. Why is progress the goal? Not everything has to "progress" at all times. What progress needs to be made anyway? And towards what end? Who decides that?

There's an inherent good to stopping progress and spending some time in a cabin in the woods.

If we never stop and enjoy now, then why bother with tomorrow?

They're having the same problems with political extremism as the US. To be clear, this is both that political figures are leaning towards the extreme ends of their ideologies, as well as a culture of dogma and isolation that pushes them and their citizens towards extremes.

Here's the correct principle to live by:

If it didn't occur in nature where evolution honed both its existence and human's tolerance to it, then don't consume/use it.

After so many years, I simply can't count how many times "science" has brought us some new food, ingredient, or chemical, which passed all security measures, only to find later it causes or contributes noticeably to some horrible outcome. And I'm perfectly fine not attributing malice. My experience tells me we're quite good at doing the wrong thing while thinking we're doing the right thing. Although, given the current economic climate, malice is probably just as valid.

Replies summarized: that already exists

Firebase. Thanks. Got it swapped for the YouTube channel.

> There is no way to safely interrupt an arbitrary block of code. Anything could be happening at the end of that 5 seconds.

IKR!? Like, I'll be click-click-clicking away on my 1982 IBM PC/XT, I mean I'm REALLY hammering it, like REALLY leaning into the keystrokes. Then, all of a sudden, WHAM! Out pops some random lines of code; right at the end of my thread.abort block. I mean, D00000D. OMFG. This can happen anywhere! Anytime! How is any programmer supposed to know what their code is executing?!

I guess I tend to believe, if you don't know what you are doing, then don't do it.

If this is that big of an issue, maybe try real estate. Say it with me, "three-brrr", "two-brrr". Good. Now together...

Also, "idempotent". Everyone keeps dancing around that. Not sure why.

Fireship got hacked. Ticketmaster had user info stolen. et al, so when I see:

> I log barely enough to determine whether the server has crashed.

> We do not collect nor track...

I'm 50% sold by these principles alone.

It's 2024 and not being a data creep is a product feature now.

Thank you.

What this industry has taught me:

1. DRY initially when your organization is afraid of refactoring because they'll never let you touch it a second time if "it works".

2. DRY later when it's clear the code will not change into genuinely separate branching workflows.

3. DRY it initially when mid-level management uses duplication as a metric to evaluate "good" engineers, especially when your salary is impacted by that perception.

1 and 3 have been a symptom of micro-management from the business side. Only 2 is valid.

I like it! That's a great idea.

To me, this sounds like a great practice for terminal environments but may be less intuitive when using file system apps. I could easily overlook a single letter capitalization in a GUI view of many directories. Maybe it's because at a terminal the "view" into the file system is narrow?

Now I'm wondering how I can use this in my docker images. I mean that might irritate devops. Well, maybe they'll like it too. Man, thanks for posting this.

GM requiring Google integration and eliminating Apple Car Play and Android Auto makes me think a brand new model is immediately disposable.

If I have choice removed from me, in particular a choice I very much care about, then I’m going to care about owning that car less. The more that happens the more people may view vehicles as pure utility and much easier to walk away from for any reason, especially repair cost. Who cares whether you replace a Chevrolet with a Ford when they are untouchable boxes?

Insurance companies would love this BYW. If they can find a cheaper alternative that’s another brand, you’ll be reimbursed for that, not what you originally bought.

It certainly looks like many small choices are being made towards automobiles being truly disposable.

> just that they got tricked in this very artificial situation where you are in a dominant position and ask trick questions

DING DING DING!

About 30% of all interviews I've had in my career the person doing the technical interview was using it as a means to stroke their ego. I got the impression they don't get the power they want there and this was a brief reprieve where they are "the expert" and get to thumbs up or thumbs down in their kingly intellectual facade.

TBF, I personally cut them some slack because they may actually be right about a lot and not given the authority to do what they know is right.

Still, if we're subjected to AI resume filtering, then how about we replace the technical interview process with AI too and eliminate the BS ego trips?

This feels like a quantification fallacy. You say

> but that definitely is one particular use of RAG

One use of RAG doesn't imply that all uses of RAG are for grounding LLM hallucinations.

Additionally, I disdain when fallacies come up in conversation when it doesn't appear someone is making an argument in bad faith. We all use logical fallacies by accident from time to time. A good use of calling them out is when they are used in poor taste. I find that more on Reddit than Hacker News.

I have now also engaged in the Tu Quoque fallacy in this reply. See how annoying they are?

Its too bad research papers can't be organized like a git history. We'd see many forks that never end up as pull requests that are merged back to main. And probably forks of forks that stray too far from the founding paper's intent. It would be nice to more easily identify original versus derivative research. Maybe that solves a different problem. I like their suggestion though:

"I offer a prag­matic cri­te­rion: what makes a crit­i­cism im­por­tant is how much it could change a re­sult if cor­rected and how much that would then change our de­ci­sions or ac­tions: to what ex­tent it is a “dif­fer­ence which makes a dif­fer­ence”. This is why is­sues of re­search fraud, causal in­fer­ence, or bi­ases yield­ing over­es­ti­mates are uni­ver­sally im­por­tant: be­cause a ‘causal’ ef­fect turn­ing out to be zero ef­fect or grossly over­es­ti­mated will change al­most all de­ci­sions based on such re­search; while on the other hand, other is­sues like mea­sure­ment error or dis­tri­b­u­tional as­sump­tions, which are equally com­mon, are often not im­por­tant: be­cause they typ­i­cally yield much smaller changes in con­clu­sions, and hence de­ci­sions."

So, 2 papers, both with data and claims.

The first is critiqued on its claim because the data, while correct with quality methodology, doesn't support the extent made in the claim. This critique is more meaningful because it changes the outcome of the paper and any decisions following its publication.

The second's claim is within the bounds of the data but there is a discrepancy in the data collection which is the source its its critique. Fixing that doesn't change the claim but may indicate more research is needed. This critique could change decisions made from publishing, but if the claim is still within the reason of the data, then likely not.

I had to think through that and I think I like it.

I with you. But maybe there's a line it crosses from feature to critical impediment?

A great example is YouTube in a web browser. My internet is 350 Mbps with 20-40ms latency. Trying to load YouTube in a new browser tab takes a few to several seconds and I'm forced to wait for it to load because the sign in link doesn't show up until the end of the seizure inducing re-render flashes. Safari, no add ons.

I can't believe it takes so long and I think less of Google as a company because of it. Them speeding it up is not a feature in that case. A trillion dollar technology company ought to provide fast as merely baseline. Anything less is them intentionally disregarding their customer.

I laughed, but I felt the need to downvote. By the rules, this is off topic, but personally, I'm exhausted by politics being injected into every other topic of conversation. Even if you and I agree politically, I think we can reduce hyper partisanship by not being political in discussions outside of politics. It's the reason this joke exists:

How can you tell whether someone is a vegan or into CrossFit? Because they will tell you about it.

It's true. Bribery is for super pacs with much higher caps. Or was it, pacs have caps but super pacs don't? I forget how those work.

Point is, when you go to a meeting with especially wealthy donors that fund your campaign through super pacs, then ensure the dialog from those meetings is never made public, I think its reasonable to assume some form of bribery has occurred, if not strictly within the legal definition.

In reading this, I am reminded of a YouTube video by CGP Grey about how anger is more viral than any other emotional reaction online, including love. But then I think, isn't this one of those times where at least some level of annoyance is justified?

Except, there's nothing I can do about it. Does making more people aware, that can't do anything about it, improve the situation? Or is awareness pointless because of how transient it is?

And, what if the next great filter isn't great, but a series of smaller exponential filters pulled into a tight timeframe by the advancement of technology?

I probably just need more sleep.

We’re one Carrington event away from coiling our own copper wire to pick up AM signals. I’m unaware of any similar mechanism for internet or cell reception. I’m pretty happy with AM being carried forward. Maybe the FCC could support that by loosening the requirements for registering and operating stations. I’d love to run my own from my house.

If we’re to correct the exuberance of emotion then this reactionary reply doesn’t fit either.

On the topic, I found this informative: https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=1

“ $1 in 1963 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $10.21 today, an increase of $9.21 over 61 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.88% per year between 1963 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 920.69%.”

Also: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1964/demo/p60-04...

“ The median income of all families in 1963 was about $6,200; but for families headed by college graduates, the median was $9,700. The median for all families was about $290, or 5 percent, higher than in 1962. Consumer prices rose during this period by about 1 percent; therefore, not all of this amount represented a net gain in purchasing power for the average family.1

Median family income in current dollars has more than doubled in the postwar period (from about $3,000 in 1947 to about $6,200 in 1963). This rise was accompanied by a gradual upward shift of families on the income scale. However, consumer prices have risen substantially during this period so that only about three-fifths of the increase in current-dollar incomes represented an increase in real income. In terms of constant (1963) dollars, median family income increased from $4,200 in 1947 to $6,200 in 1963. This increase was less pronounced than the increase in current-dollar income, but it was nevertheless substantial.”

Please read the source before commenting. I did and I’m surprised by what’s been said so far here. The context for the article is an alien from some other planet visiting Earth and taking inventory of human society (really the whole planet) every 50 years. If you don’t want to read the whole thing, I think the summary at the end does a good job of encompassing the perspective:

“Visiting the planet every half-century has made her (the alien), unlike her Earth friends, an optimist. Humankind never goes the easy way around, and given the stakes, they could easily mess up—by starting World War III or being unprepared for a more lethal pandemic than COVID-19, unrestrained artificial intelligence, or the deadly consequences of the climate crisis. She reminds herself, and wishes the citizens of the planet could remember, that few living in 1974, 1924, or 1874 could have imagined the extraordinary progress earthlings have made since. Which, perhaps against her better judgment, gives her hope that she will get to visit in 2074 and be impressed once again.”

As the non-ADHD spouse I definitely understand this but it leaves us both scratching our heads when problem solving ADHD related things. I simply can’t comprehend what it’s like and nothing that works for me works for her. Mostly I just try to focus on myself and my needs (which has limits in our relationship). I can’t offer anyone advice except sometimes loving someone else is a choice you make for you, especially when it’s inadvertently (often but not always) one sided.

Yes, and there’s loads of opportunity to over engineer every step of the process.

So, Lady Finger, not Cavendish. Got it.

Rails isn't dead. In fact Hotwire and Stimulus have breathed some new life back into the community. With Rails 7 there's new and interesting changes happening like the normalize method for normalizing data before it's persisted to the database, the new testing coverage, and the new encrypted credentials, which can replace devise as it's easier to extend. STI is still awesome and concerns help DRY up the code. I know it's not the new kid on the block anymore, but if you code into a Rails way of doing things it's still crazy fast for rapid development.

Nor are we at fault. Corporate consolidation has been happening for decades. They have psychologists on staff or contracted out to design products that sell based on inherent human bias and autonomic responses. We’re sold to at the subconscious level now.

I agree given only two choices the average consumer will spend the least, but doesn’t that suggest trying to make aware or change human behavior is the wrong approach to solving the problem?

I wouldn’t bother with land fills for a while. First on my list is standardizing electrical power at docks for container ships. They run the most polluting fuel on idle 24 hours per day while docked. The amount of carbon release is something like in the millions of automobiles per day. If they could plug into every port they can shut their engines off. They might not even need to carry the dirtiest fuel anymore.

Feel free to email Jeff Bezos to put a country of origin filter on Amazon.com so I can actually reduce the carbon footprint of the products I buy.

Consumers have very few options within their control and the problem is not binary nor does its solution need to be zero sum.

intellectual entropy

Good point. Maybe they can invite a discussion where the suggester walks through ChatGPT steps explaining how it is done? Hopefully people aren't so flippant they hammer their keyboard and hit send email. If that's the case, then maybe they need an ego check.

I think my default response would be (regardless of the ChatGPT instructions):

"I looked it over and it doesn't actually work. ChatGPT is good for many high level things but when the specifics get technical, is struggles and invents solutions that don't exist; like a bloom filter. Ask ChaGPT what a bloom filter is."