peeters

Also, merely them knowing you have a lawyer instantly reframes the problem in their eyes. The path of least resistance to dealing with a "problematic" student is making the student go away. The path of least resistance to dealing with a "problematic" student with a lawyer is making the lawyer go away.

All of a sudden bureaucrats will be getting visits from internal legal departments asking very pointed questions about questionable actions.

Both are valid ways of using "would have", in this case I'm using it as the past tense of "will have". But I appreciate the ambiguity it creates.

> We use "would have" as the past tense form of will have:

>> I phoned at six o'clock. I knew he would have got home by then.

Note the difference between this and:

> I phoned at six o'clock. I knew he was home by then.

Which implies first-hand knowledge of his location. The first only signals a logical conclusion.

https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar/english-gram...

> Roman Empire’s use of lead lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds

I'm not a fan of this phrasing. None of the findings had anything to do with measuring IQ levels in ancient Europe. They were about measuring historical levels of lead, which they then just plugged into modern models to presume some levels of cognitive effects.

A study that was actually able to measure cognitive disparities and correlate them with measured levels of lead would have been extremely interesting, but this is not that. Everything other than the measurements of historical lead levels seems to be fluff.

This would kind of be like saying "massive asteroid strike 100m years ago lead to cataclysmic tsunami, study finds" but then not showing any evidence of a tsunami, just evidence that it struck an ocean and the inference that that would have caused a tsunami. It might be a reasonable inference, it's just not as interesting as the title would make it seem.

Edit: I should qualify, I'm not trying to say that "they did the math"-style papers don't have value, just that the phrasing in how they are presented matters to me. If the phrasing was more like "Use of lead in Roman Empire would have lowered IQ levels across Europe, study finds" I would have no issue with it.

Interesting that this is making the rounds...maybe OP also had this recent video show up in their Youtube feed? It includes interview clips with John Norton, the author of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjZB81jCGj4

An interesting countermetric would be to after each iteration ask a fresh LLM (unaware of the context that created the code) to summarize the purpose of the code, and then evaluate how close those summaries are to the original problem spec. It might demonstrate the subjectivity of "better" and how optimization usually trades clarity of intention for faster results.

Or alternatively, it might just demonstrate the power of LLMs to summarize complex code.

They wasted an opportunity to get a third thing meaning "million" into the same number with 5.6 x 10^6 million megagrams.

> There’s no reason why I need 20,000 items on the screen at the same time. Fewer but more legible items are better. I can scroll for more.

I'm reasonably sure most spreadsheet power users would have the opposite preferences to you. I do, for one. Data density is everything in non-trivial spreadsheets.

To be fair that was quite a late addition to the language all things considered. It could be he learned Java before it existed, or had most of his experience in 1.4 (which survived quite long in some environments because 1.5 was such a huge overhaul). But still, a good dev will keep up to date with language features.

> trivially parseable by JavaScript going back to when people just evaluated it

Comments and all, ironically.

I mean sure, "and all" would frequently include script injections etc, but you can't argue it wasn't more feature rich!

oh not "yikes" at all I totally peaked at the code to try to find one for him. I feel like bug fixing at that age is a fun exercise; it gets you thinking more laterally about the program you're writing.

Awesome job! If you want him to get some experience with bug fixing, I found one: ask him what happens if you click on an attack and then hit escape (it cancels the attack but still charges up your attacks, so you can get to full charge on your first attack)

It's astonishing how many rulebooks (and people) leave that for the "scoring" section as if it's an afterthought for when the game is over.

Since you seem passionate about precise definitions for technical terms, maybe you could point us to third-party definitions which match your understanding? Start with sources for what "compilation" and "tokenization" mean as you understand them?

javac does produce machine code. You just don't like the machine.

And how do you pronounce that?

> The only real downside is data control (ie - the company has less control over how a developer manages assets like source code).

I've worked in a remote, secured development environment and it sucked, but to their credit the company did it for exactly this reason - control over the source. But bear in mind that source control is a two-way street.

Losing proprietary source can be harmful (especially in compiled languages where the source might carry much more information than the distributable). But they were mostly worried about the opposite way...that something malicious gets INTO the source which could pose an existential threat. You'd be correct to say "well that should be the domain of source control, peer review etc", but in this case the company assessed the risk high enough to do both.

My kettle decided to use capacitive resistance buttons (even though they're elevated so they could just be switches). Every time I splash water on them (which you know, can happen sometimes with kettles) I have to dry them off and power cycle the kettle to get them to work again.

Innovators gonna innovate I guess.

Competitors compete in the same market. The market in this case is VS Code extensions, with the consumers in that market being the user base of VS Code, not the users of some fork of VS Code. You can't point your competitors to a different market and then reasonably claim to be open to competition.

> Everyone is reading this as intentional anti-competitive practices. While that may be true, isn't another reasonable explanation that the Copilot development team is moving as fast as they can and these sorts of workarounds are being forced through in the name of team velocity?

Wouldn't another way of saying that be "the Copilot development team is leveraging their Microsoft ownership to create products in a way not available to the general marketplace?"

The goal might not be to squash competition, but blessing one client with special treatment not available to others can still be anti-competitive.

Whether that would fall afoul of any regulation is beyond my expertise. Naively, most companies have internal APIs that are not generally available. But then most companies don't have paid public marketplaces on their platform.

That would be an interesting contrast to 1984's dystopian Newspeak, which aimed to eliminate all individuality in language.

To expand on this, the circumference is divided into four quadrants, and you must shoot from your own quadrant without rotating the board (although physical abilities considered, many people play with house rules where you can rotate it). Saying your butt has to be on your seat limits how much you're allowed to move yourself around the board.

It's true that even with that rule, you can typically lean to take a shot from both extremes of your quadrant, however those shots are harder to aim because you're not positioned behind the shot.

If you think of where the centre of mass of the population of Ontario is, it is insanely far north. But yeah in its official definition Northern Ontario is more of a political designation than a geographical one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/rw4jd...

> I guess I'm a victim of this reporting to some extent, because I remember this situation going on for months, and I keep thinking every time it's mentioned (often) how terrible it must be for these astronauts and why something isn't done about it.

I'm not Butch or Suni, but I think the astronauts most negatively affected by this would be the two that got bumped from Crew 9. Astronauts define their careers by the amount and quality of the time they are blessed to spend in space. Chris Hadfield, e.g., has taken it for granted that the pair would feel lucky to be "stranded" for a few months, and would have plenty of meaningful work to occupy their time.

If you are required to fully prepay, instead of pay a recurring fee, then the license term should be fixed to eternity, meaning a refund is in order if the license is ever revoked. Otherwise, it should have to be phrased as a recurring payment ($XX for first 2 years, $YY/year after that). This model that you pay fully up front but for an undefined term length is odious and should be illegal.

Yeah GP is probably merging two things that happen in the movie. One, the villain (played by Samuel Jackson) implants all of his "inner circle" with exploding implants to guarantee compliance, and late in the movie they are hacked so that the entire group is simultaneously assassinated with a single signal. Two, that same villain gives out free SIM cards to everyone on the planet that can be remotely triggered to throw everyone in range into a homicidal rage. The latter is probably what GP was thinking of, but they misremembered the effect.

> The idea is that without copyright there is no benefit in keeping the source code secret.

Why not? You can decompile a cookie to try to see what method was used to make it, but Nabisco or whoever still treats that method and the ingredient ratios as trade secrets. In fact, the whole idea of trade secrets are things that are kept secret because IP protections don't cover them.

I'm not sure I see how that's true. The GPL puts a legal onus on modifiers to publish their modifications to the source with distributions of the software. Without copyright, any other party might be legally entitled to use and redistribute said modifications, but the modifier wouldn't be compelled to publish them.

I can't quickly parse this in a way that makes 5.2

    1 + (2 * 3) - (4 / 5) = 6.2 (PEMDAS)
    1 + (2 * (3 - (4 / 5))) = 5.4 (greedy)
    (((1+2) * 3) - 4) / 5 = 0.4 (non-greedy)

Was it a typo or is it using some other grouping I don't understand?

If I had to guess, the thing they would dislike the most about the situation is that two previously assigned astronauts scheduled to fly are getting bumped from their mission so that Crew Dragon can fly with two empty seats.

> The input string and output are coupled. If you add string conditionals as the author did, you introduce the chance of a mismatch between the input and output.

I think it depends on whether the repetition is accidental or intrinsic. Does the table name happen to contain the address type as a prefix, or does it intrinsically have to? Greppability aside, when things are incidentally related, it's often better to repeat yourself to not give the wrong impression that they're intrinsically related. Conversely, if they are intrinsically related (i.e. it's an invariant of the system that the table name starts with the address type as a prefix) then it's better for the code to align with that.