nunuvit

It's a problem across all subjects.

Out of necessity, academia historically selected for students who could learn from being read to just once without much context, and there was little pressure to fundamentally change the education format. It's very easy to better serve most modern students by actually designing the program for those students for a change.

Debates over this get muddled by zero-sum concerns. E.g. catering to the average student hurts the top performers; putting applications first replaces rigorous education with training.

It's not blackmail in the first place. There were no secrets to reveal since everything was published online, and it's legal to sue and report a possible crime. Speculating about the consequences doesn't make it blackmail.

Science fiction is great like that, isn't it? The only limits are the author's imagination.

Thank you for the tutorial! I don't mean to be greedy, but would you mind sharing your top MS Word typography tip that you think people should know? Aside from this one.

In engineering practice, we often start using math without first consulting numerical analysts. It takes a long time to identify and fix the inevitable issues, which eventually becomes a lesson we have to teach students and practicing engineers because the field has accumulated so much historical baggage from doing it the wrong way.

As an example, early device models for circuit simulation were not designed to be numerically differentiable, leading to serious numerical artifacts and performance issues. Now we have courses dedicated to designing such models, and numerical analysis is used and emphasized throughout.

Is there anything today that you look at and think "yeah, they're gonna need to fix that at some point"?

I think the future of these languages is largely as a target for code generation and transformation. Their legacy tooling-unfriendly designs is what's slowing this transition.

> but the "ecosystem" just wasn't there

I don't think it ever will be, either. Ada's "ecosystem" is really the tooling. I've seen plenty of Ada, but there's always been zero (or very nearly zero) exchange of code into or out of the company. There's not much opportunity to grow a natural ecosystem like that. The tooling for C and C++ is catching up, facilitating model-based design code generation, which is the direction Ada's niche is heading. Ada didn't entrench itself as a target language early on, missing another chance to surge in popularity.

It's too late to edit my original comment. I was responding to the part about when you're breaking a lot of stuff all the time.

Checking limits is for preventing breaks. Visualizing heat is for troubleshooting when they happen anyway. You should do both.

I can't edit the comment now, but I worded it wrong. The quote only applies to exceeding maximum values. The visualization is much more useful if you've calculated worst-case. I use a thermal camera all the time.

It takes 5 minutes to show someone how to read maximum values off a datasheet, and it makes the visualization 100x more useful.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

I explained in my other comment how it's a great tool for other jobs, but the wrong tool for this job. You won't learn how not to break things by ignoring the proper tool.

Nothing. It's great. But it's the wrong tool for the job. Like teaching someone to stop a car by using the speedometer to estimate when to let go of the accelerator pedal, instead of introducing them to the brake pedal.

So teach them to check the power and the paint will help them realize when they forget to do so.

All you have to do is read the datasheet and multiply a few numbers to calculate worst-case power. Remembering to do that should be second nature, like remembering to close any parentheses you open. It's a great tool for understanding in greater detail, but it's not the way to avoid breaking stuff.

It's until the end of 2025, about 2.5 years from now. The comment was by GVR, who is presumably adding up all the pledged time to estimate whether there's enough in total.

The title is fine. Sponsorship doesn't need to include a money a transfer.

The workarounds require extra equipment and they're much more complicated. Better to wait for a more capable machine.

Like I said, they're behind. Don't hold your breath for them to catch up.

EA is actually working on the reliability problems now, but they're a few years behind.

Not really. ABB is good at hardware protection, which is why the faults don't usually result in failures. Tesla is ahead in terms of anticipating, avoiding, and automatically handling such issues. The variety of cars absolutely creates a challenge, but Tesla is better positioned to meet the challenge.

It's a hardware reliability problem, and Tesla simply has the most advanced capability to tackle the problem in this product market.

I think it's probably fine. It adds options for those who would rather die fighting. The exact placement of the line the FDA draws for approval doesn't align perfectly with everyone's values and situation, so there should be a little wiggle room.

He could say you told him you had a gun, and brandished what looked like a gun. No reason to admit that it's really about the camera.

> they'll be in the wrong the second they take action against you

But like you said, they lied about you provoking them and destroyed the evidence showing that you didn't. Nobody will ever know that they beat you up just because you were recording.

I know why cops don't want body cams.

I read it differently before, but I think you read it correctly.

Yeah that's the error, as I interpret it.

One comment mentioned slander, which is illegal. Project Veritas in the past has committed slander, and lost the resulting defamation suit.

The response mentioned neutrality with regards to mocking Trump with an out of context video, which is protected political speech. It seems they're equating two instances of media reporting out of context, and saying that the response to those media outlets is not neutral. But they're not equivalent because one instance is illegal, and the other is protected. So I don't see where we'd need to apply neutrality in the first place.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. What's your take?

You answered your own question. The simple law of supply and demand can create unlivable wages for one. By controlling supply, you decide what types of people can make a livable wage.

Maybe you want locals with families to have the opportunity to drive. So you control the supply until they can afford local rents and still have time to spend with their kids.

Of course, cities often turned it into extortion, but they don't have to do that.

Ok, so let's remove the ban and the exceptions and make it legal to record anyone.

Then you record a cop who doesn't want to be recorded. The cop beats you up, breaks your phone, and busts your lip. He and his five buddies say you provoked him, and you never see justice.

Problem solved?

I think we might be talking about different things. Slander is illegal. Political speech is constitutionally protected.

How exactly does this relate to "neutrality"?