pitkali

Yes, eventually it will be solved. But I drive today, and until I can charge the car, there's no point getting the electric one.

> I don't censor bad grammar.

We're not talking about bad grammar, but sentences that are correct and sensible, and if you wrote them before AI, nobody would bat an eye. But because they are used by AI, these days they make people dismiss the whole piece.

It's not really different from dismissing people because they happened to use the same phrasing as Stephen King. You can't even tell if it's because they read Stephen King that much, Stephen King wrote it for them, and they are now trying to pass it as their own, or just coincidentally arrived at the same literary construction.

Whenever I see those threads, they usually don't discuss the merits of the writing. They claim that AI must have been used, so it's not even worth reading.

> AI writing smell is as bad as bad grammar

It sounds to me like you want to censor perfectly fine phrasing just because AI rolled the dice to use it. Let's not forget that AI learned to "speak" from people in the first place.

Not to mention that as people shift their phrasing to avoid being accused of using AI, the AI will keep evolving, training on the new phrasing and then adopting it, too.

I understand the language evolves, but evolving language just to sound different from AI feels like wasting effort better spent elsewhere. On actual substance of the message for example.

When I lived in Sweden I had an 8-digit pin and biometrics enabled, indeed.

> I think the real problem is Google Play Services. It's far, far too tightly integrated in a way that it just seems like Android was designed to be unusable without.

Wasn't the point of Play services to enable keeping OS "updated" regardless of the manufacturer schedule? Which is to say: they are tightly integrated because they were designed to be part of an operating system that Google can keep updated through Play Store even if the device OEM is slacking on porting upstream updates to the users.

Oh, yeah, the Snowfield itself is secret enough, but getting to the palace afterwards is just a matter of exploration. The teleport is not that hidden.

FWIW, after you get one half of the medallion, get invaded by Gideon's lackey and then talk to Gideon, he will tell you to look for the Albinauric woman, so at least they give you this much.

All in all, I find the quests in the base game relatively straightforward, but anyone with any prior experience in their games will have an inkling that if they care about quests' results, you need to double-check with the wiki.

All the speedrunners just kill the guy in the jar to get the medallion: you don't have to talk to him.

Also, all you have to do in the Snowfield is to take a teleporter: that's not very secret, is it?

The peasants did not live for long, though, did they? Hard to say if and how the diet contributed, but just because people rarely ate meat then, for example, doesn't necessarily mean it's better for your health. Even if we could agree that people these days eat too much.

People talk about how we spent generations adapting to certain aspects of diet, and so following the habits of old is surely safer, but seem to forget that evolution only really "cares" about producing offspring, not your longevity, or quality of life in old age.

Code review just means you need an accomplice. It makes it harder, not impossible.

Its mere availability is not "encouragement."

I never got the idea from git itself that changing history is encouraged. What makes you say otherwise?

I don't think the internal design is/was that similar. We switched from CVS to git, and were evaluating multiple choices. What tipped the scale in the end was our trust in the internal data model, which for git was the idea that it stores the snapshots, and they are immutable. The diffs you can get out of it are calculated on demand. Even if on-disk storage can end up using some diffs to save on space, the actual conceptual model of every operation is based on those snapshots, and that is also how every new commit is stored before repacking the repository.

This appealed greatly to us, and always meant that it is effortless to undo any operation because it only creates new snapshots, while the previous ones stay there for a while in case you need to recover the previous state.

This is in contrast with Mercurial, where the data store is (was?) a sequence of diffs, and then the state of the working tree at any time is reconstructed on demand from those diffs.

Meh. While I agree that Mercurial had easier to use CLI, there was maybe 1 time over the last 15 years or whatever when I needed anything other than git reset --hard.

Although, I suppose part of this is just that manipulate index with something like lazygit.

The way I remember it was that bookmarks were added because the git branching model became so popular. The "branches" in Mercurial were allegedly not designed with short-lived feature branches in mind.

Mercurial had an easier to use command line interface. If that's what makes it far better technology, we have a very different idea what makes the "technology" better.

The non-professional flow you described does not require merging in git either. I suppose most teaching resources about git go deep into merging because it was created for distributed development where that's important, but it doesn't mean you have to teach it to a non-professional like that.

Not that I think mercurial didn't have "simpler" UI back then, but the arguments thrown around in this thread are pretty bollocks.

I got my first MacBook around 2010 because I was tired of fixing suspend to RAM every few Nvidia driver updates on my ThinkPad. Then I paid for a commercial VM to seamlessly run some Windows software I needed for my freelance work as a translator, removing the need to dual boot two operating systems. Everything just worked, and I could focus on things I wanted to do instead of continuing to tinker with the OS itself. And after years of playing with many different Linux distros, I realised that I did get tired of that. Moreover, a few games that I played, actually had native Mac versions. What's not to like?

These days I do have a Tuxedo laptop for fooling around, and I don't even use laptops on the regular, which is probably why it works well enough. That and integrated Radeon graphics, I'm sure.

Removing all manifest v2 support is also a code change that can be reverted. Of course, the larger the change, the more work it's likely to require to maintain it in the future.

A typical example for English is the adjective order.

I have to wonder to what extent the strangeness is just unfamiliarity.

Google is not the only provider of Chrome extensions (yet?).

> But because it hasn't become cannon in any group or culture, it's a bad idea in that it doesn't produce human flourishing.

I am not convinced that's certain. At best, we can tell that those cultures were outcompeted by others, but the healthy human cells are outcompeted by cancer as well. Additionally, I'd say that throughout most of the human history taking care of the world in the modern sense was not an existential matter because we had much more room for error.

Rampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful.

Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.

For me, the crisp text was the reason retina became a must.

Sure, but a screen, even a touchscreen, is not mutually exclusive with buttons. My Toyota has both, and after setting up the navigation, I can go the whole way and do everything without touching the screen.

It's not separate, but they don't necessarily have to use them like that. They merely can.

I don't think you appreciate how easy it is for the chromium forks to add their own ad blocking. This is simply not a good example of monopoly abuse on Google's part.

Because development costs money. Your "impossible to keep up" here is easily explained by Google simply investing more money in development and thus being able to "innovate" faster. The only way to compete is to invest more, but where do you get that money from?

The easy fix is to make them slow down development, but I fail to see how that's a good thing.

Yeah, that kind of sucks. I liked a sibling suggestion that splitting off YouTube would make more sense because at least it could be a self-sustaining product.

You see? There is choice.