peeters

> This is not about implementing a Sudoku solver

If you can capture validity of the game state in the type system, a sufficiently advanced IDE with autocomplete/intellisense could actually already be a naive solver, since they will tend to treat contextual autocomplete as a form of constraint satisfiability problem, which is a sufficient approach to solve easy Sudokus.

In other words, throw this into Webstorm, put your cursor in an empty cell that currently has only one possible answer, and hit ctrl-space, and I would expect it to automatically fill in the answer for you.

> Because otherwise I wouldn't be able to get it back. But if I have some kind of temporary hiding feature, I can easily use that as soon as I notice that the operation hasn't immediately completed.

A toast notification doesn't preclude being able to recover state. Email applications still have an Outbox and Sent folder. A UI that allows you to place orders can still have a Pending Orders list.

> (And again, the common case should be that it completes immediately.)

In the real world, not all operations initiated by the user can complete immediately.

> And if something isn't supposed to be instantaneous, I hold that the interface shouldn't be modal anyway.

Why not? The two things are orthagonal. Collecting information about the user's intent and acting on that intent can often have differing workflow implications and timings.

Blanket rules are almost always useless in UX. Say you have an interface made to place an order. You collect a bunch of details about the order modally. The user confirms and submits the order. But it'll take a minute or two for a vendor to confirm it. What should happen next is COMPLETELY dependent on the context of the application. If this site is where the user is ordering dinner, it makes complete sense to leave the user in a modal state until confirmation occurs, because it's unlikely they're going to be placing another order for dinner immediately after, unless the first order fails. If this site is made for a procurement professional placing 20-30 orders one after another, it makes complete sense to background the confirmation and report status non-modally.

> it shouldn't disappear until the operation is complete

Says you, but why? There are many workflows where this would be an unnecessary slow point in the user's work.

It's all about balance. If 99.9% of the time a non-instananeous operation will succeed, and the user has faith that it will succeed, leaving the modal up is a terrible UX. But quietly notifying them on success might not be.

> If the action is async, it should be clear and the feedback should instantaneously indicate that the action is queued for processing. In that case, the feedback should give 2 options: cancel and access the queue (or better give a vision of its progress ).

Where should that feedback be given for modal operations, acknowledging that 99% of the time when the user initiates the action they want to background the operation and move on to doing other things?

Oh thanks for this! I had the same question and assumed the Omega branding and Olympic rings were superimposed onto the image; I never assumed it would actually be an animated advertisement timed perfectly to match the runners' pace! I assume they had a different backdrop speed for the women's race, according to their projected pace? Or would the ad look squished for them? (or alternatively, the runners stretched?)

Now that I look at it, the logos in the men's photo finish look stretched, so maybe it's calibrated for the women's pace.

According to the article, the only part illegal about "simultaneously deplatforming" someone would be if the action were coordinated by competitors ("we'll ban John Smith if you do too"). I don't think there would be an argument with the same legal reasoning if platforms independently decided to deplatform someone, or even if they saw another platform deplatform someone and let that influence their decision.

The Reddit example might be closer to the type of coordination it targets, but it would be hard to apply anti-monopoly legislation to volunteer Reddit mods.

I recently started using CPAP and one thing I noticed in the sleep study, besides all the other reasons it was hard to fall asleep, was that when they were doing the titration test to find the best initial pressure, they set it very low and then let it climb up once I stopped breathing at that setting.

The problem was, I actually found it difficult enough to breathe through my nose at that pressure that I would just keep myself awake because I couldn't relax with the mask on. It was kind of horrible and my technician didn't change it for hours. Eventually I started just intentionally snoring while awake to try to get her increase the pressure. No idea if she did but eventually exhaustion won out after around 4 hours.

So just a thought, but if you're using an autoset machine (APAP) maybe discuss with your doctor and make sure the initial pressure is high enough that you're able to breath comfortably through your nose when fully relaxed.

And also, you can experiment with different mask types depending on your sleep position.

They are typically superimposed yes. It's extraordinarily easy with football, the field is essentially a premade green screen with completely standardized index points (the yard markers). What's funny is what happens when it starts snowing on the field, which is not rare with the NFL's schedule.

It's been a really long time since I dealt with anything this low level, but in my very limited and ancient experience when people talk about context switching they're talking specifically about the userland process yielding execution back to the kernel so that the processor can be reassigned to a different process/thread. Naively, if the JVM isn't actually yielding control back to the kernel, it has the freedom to do things in a much more lightweight manner than the kernel would have to.

So I think it's meaningful to define what we mean by context switch here.

I think they're saying it does the job of making it taste sweet (artificially anyway) but comes with an unpleasant flavour.

I was imagining a standard 3D lattice of struts that could be configured however you want - as equipment mounts, wall studs, etc. They don't need to take too much load so the lattice itself could even be modular in my mind.

I think you missed the comment that GP was responding to. They were responding to a claim that if masks only protect the virus from escaping, then masks only protect the selfish population.

If masks only protect the virus from escaping and not entering, then wearing a mask protects non-mask-wearers and other mask-wearers the same.

I can't find any link to the actual study or even a description of its methodology. The research appears to have been done for the book Impact Engineering, which introduces the new methodology, and yet the research also claims to have measured projects following that methodology. From the marketing summary here [1], it seems like what they actually did was to isolate which individual virtues of various methodologies had an impact on project success (which also goes without a definition of course). Then they choose which of those individual virtues would be promoted by their new methodology, and use projects adhering to those virtues as a proxy for scoring their new methodology. And then claim the result as statistically significant. It would be interesting to see if this was the actual methodology, because if so, that's clearly nonsensical.

Also, it would be highly relevant to know the definition of success here. Evaluating an Agile project's success as "completition of the project's initial requirements on time" would be completely asinine, given the entire point of Agile is to adapt to changing requirements.

[1]: https://www.engprax.com/post/268-higher-failure-rates-for-ag...

Before the last 9 years of the Liberals there was 9 years of the Conservatives. Prior to that there were 12 years of Liberals and before that 10 years of Conservatives. Saying there is one ruling party in Canada ignores the majority of Canadian history. Furthermore, since you brought up partisanship, it's worth noting that outside of Quebec, only members of conservative provincial parties have invoked the notwithstanding clause.

I know you know this, because you mentioned the Bill of Rights, but just to be more precise, we have a constitution, but our charter of rights is overridable in certain circumstances. The constitution is more than an enumeration of rights in both the US and Canada, it also defines the structure of representation, government, and democracy, none of which is subject to the notwithstanding clause (obviously, because the notwithstanding clause itself is part of the Constitution).

That said, the Conservative Leader has signalled that he will use it to override the Supreme Court on social issues. Now dropping hints in an election runup is obviously different than actually invoking the NWC, but it demonstrates that our Charter is as robust as our politicians' perceived risk of throwing it out. Having the loophole to preserve some level of provincial autonomy is one thing, but having federal parties signal they will use it is an attack on the institution itself.

> the UK has used it since 1974, so let's just assume that FT (an English language paper) is not worried about confusion

Anyone aged around 60 or older would have been learning these numbers before 1974, and that's a significant overlap with FT's audience. You are dismissing this as if it's Middle English. It's an entirely reasonable explanation, at least one that shouldn't be dismissed.

I think having some level of gravity is important for the simplicity of it. With a downward force it acts somewhat like a velodrome. You start angled upwards and as you gain centripetal force you gradually go more and more horizontal.

Theoretically you could achieve the same result in zero-g, but getting started is much more difficult, as are microadjustments in speed and balance.

If this post is to be believed, a full deepfield survey would take four thousand to fourty thousand years. https://www.reddit.com/r/jameswebb/comments/wrwsfc/how_long_...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely astounded by the JWST's level of detail and am in awe of the pictures it takes. And they are obviously far more detailed than the OP's. I also think it was a worthy expense. I was just noting that my awe of both is comparable when you normalize for cost!

I mean I don't know if I'm more impressed by their level of detail from a $10 billion telescope or your level of detail from a consumer-grade telescope!

Nor do I, just saying "idiotic" is the wrong pejorative here. He's doing what he's being paid to do and doing it competently and successfully.

They want 1 in 5 VMWare customers to jump. If they don't, they'll be forcibly pushed off of the edge. Broadcom's entire growth model is to take an established player that is entrenched in massive corporations, introduce that product to the existing portfolio Broadcom offers that customer, and then jack the price on the lot. If you're not in the Fortune 500, Broadcom doesn't want to talk to you and if they keep your business at all it'll be through digital sales or third party resellers.

I am not a fan of them and didn't like working for them, but their financial results speak for themselves. You can attack the ethics of Tan's leadership certainly, but to call him an idiot ignores the fact that he's doing exactly what his shareholders want. Growing the company at obscene returns.

As an alternative to slides it might work well, but both are terrible formats for reference material (anything where you need to extract a quick piece of information). The shift to having to mine YouTube videos for much of the world's specialized knowledge is a shame, and Google makes it worse every day with how they prioritize search results.

It seems unlikely based on what has been revealed about the system. It seems like Lavender is a classification AI that plugs static details about a person into a NN of some sort and spits out a score of how likely they're to be involved with Hamas. Score above a certain threshold and your home becomes a target for a dumb bomb.

The World Central Kitchen attack appears to have used smart munitions (missiles from a drone) on a mobile truck.

Stepping in with regulation doesn't necessarily imply forced support. It could be more like "though shalt not claim copyright over a game thou hast ceased to support, and thou shalt remove all security barriers from thine code when thou chooseth to cease supporting it".

Yeah the point of shadow banning is so that trolls/bots continue to scream into the void, rather than creating a new account. I'm guessing it's only so long before human trolls notice, and I'm guessing that bots could just have automated ways of checking ("was my last post visible to an unauthenticated user?")

TOTP is a completely offline protocol. Basically you scan a QR code which is a signing key that is saved to your phone. Then all your phone needs is an accurate time source, and periodically signs the current time with that key to produce a 6-digit code.

As such, no, it's not associated with anything from the source account. It is not challenge/response, and you can scan the QR code with 10 different phones and they will all produce the same codes at the same time.

My favourite is TD Bank in Canada, who started supporting an authenticator app (but it had to be theirs) because it was more secure than SMS. Except...they also don't allow you to disable SMS as an option for 2FA. So whoever is logging in gets to choose whether to use the secure authenticator app, or SMS.