seeknotfind

Is there a way to use this with bisect? Once you use merges, you aren't guaranteed to be able to apply the commits in the topo-order in a safe way. For instance if one parent changes the text of a file AA -> AB -> AC and one changes the text AA -> ABA -> ACA, the merge commit contains information to combine AC/ACA, but there is no information stored on how to resolve AB/ABA (or other combinations), so if intermediate states conflict, you can no longer bisect.

edit: and if you pick a specific order as you are suggesting to reduce the search space, then it's unclear how to resolve applying ABA on top of AC, for instance

I would also not recommend calling the IRS based on mutable files on GitHub that are verified by people on HN. Though they may be correct sometimes.

When commits from two or more parents have to interact in order to produce a bug, I don't think there is a bisect algorithm that can actually identify that bug. There isn't enough data to automatically merge prefixes of the merge history from respective parents in order to test them against each other. Also, the search space in this case becomes the product of the number of commits from the LCA to each parent. So I really don't understand how we messed up.

I'm just glad we have "--rebase-merges" now because when you have two git servers that are actually important enough not to rebase their history, you do need merges.

IDK man. I'm kind of sad we don't used decentralized more. That was a vision of the infinite future lost to the past. Client/server symmetry is beautiful and maybe if GitHub goes down one day, we'll remember the glory and power of a million scattered copies to save the day. Plus all this hoopdy-doo about what we can and can't put on other people's servers? Self-host, self-speak, self-actualize. ;P

What does this mean for Post-Quantum Gravity?

Or the worst is "here is a custom build of clang which ignores all private variables so you don't have to worry about it".

Hahahahahaha. I use this naming scheme sometimes too. Also like "__IF_YOU_USE_THIS_YOU_ACCEPT_DEATH__X". If anybody will ever see it or you don't know, DO NOT USE IT. In most languages, you have "private" but sometimes you have to negotiate with your fellow programmers!

I would not recommend calling the IRS based on phone numbers you see on GitHub, though they may be correct sometimes.

Anyone recommend particular electrodes for this or have a good comparison with alternatives?

It's not just that they are afraid. No one has succeeded in building production-level systems at scale purely using "formal methods". There are a variety of ways to measure how a system compares to a spec. For instance, you can measure throughput at various points in a system. However, formal methods are much more detailed, and when they are applied today, it's usually within a limited context as a way to verify or do model checking.

Why are some people 5ft tall and some people 6ft? Why are some people perpetually in a bad mood and other people are annoying? I would be more surprised if everyone was the same.

Now where's the tool to lookup all my coworkers.

Great article. Really great article.

After asking ChatGPT to get the last 3 characters of a file name, and then asking why I wanted to do that:

> You're likely interested in extracting the file extension from the file name, as file extensions often provide information about the type or format of the file.

So these AI are reinforced to be obedient, but they might still know your mistakes. Though this isn't a particularly good answer either.

Maybe Kant would say you should refuse to tell the axe murderer the location instead of lying.

I wouldn't want it to be $1. To much room for abuse.

The same McCarthy who scaremongered communism?

This one really hit home. I'm afraid the metric-loving culture is too strong.

Yes, exactly. Lol. If you can obscure the sun, that is already cooling things down by much greater means.

Why not? This seems like a great thing to happen. If the author's heart is really in the project, then this is a huge opportunity moment to learn something new.

Imagine the article was "resurrecting loved ones as video ghosts could harm your mental health." It's also "true," but progress! Progress!

As far as it's ability as an FS mocking layer for tests, I'd think its principle disadvantage would be on FUSE only making sense on UNIX-like systems.

You can use FUSE :)

The suggestion is maybe part of the sky is easier to survey, so it was completed cheaply, even though that part wasn't the most likely part. I don't know which way it is, but it's an interesting question, and that's what OP is getting at for understanding the relevant probabilities instead of the relevant area.

You could download it all for free just last year.. :O

Old man lose horse.

Whatever. I am keeping mine. It's the future. It's addictive. It's magical. There isn't a lot of content, but I still haven't gotten bored enough to start coding apps on it.

I've done a number of hacks to get it to work, but using my Android phone as a Bluetooth keyboard is the killer app. Google keyboard swype plus the better Google voice recognition makes it usable. Also, I cut off the fabric of a backup light shield, so you can use it with peripheral vision. That's pretty decent for chores.

Give it a few weeks for bored people to start making apps, figure out how to limit YouTube on this thing so you're not turning into a wire head. I try to watch my 80" TV now, and it just feels too small and restricted.

This is just the news being news. If you're savy, and if you have a MBP, and especially if you're a developer, and especially if you have the money, it's legit. It's only going to get better. My thought was, better spend the money now and experience a revolution than wait a year for it to be even better, but too afraid to drop that amount of money when the second one is about to come out.

For instance, there is disagreement on if time is quantized, and relatively says time is relative. So at the point we might reimagine the basis of our understanding, two independent measurements of Hz are incomparable. Whatever is out there for us to discover, I'm sure it'll take us all by surprise. I've no doubt you know way more about how we measure these things in practice than I do, but our scientific model and measurements are inextricably linked. This isn't a useful way to think for most practitioners, but it's the perspective that the next Newton or the next Einstein will need to consider. So, in rootier poster comment that this feels like a wrong calculation, I want to treasure that part of the perspective that seeks to reimagine the fundamentals.

So many significant digits includes a level of self-consistency of the model, since we are assuming the model to some degree in order to measure it. Though in this case, it's not the calculations that are wrong, but the model, we hope is wrong. That is, a new perspective and a new way of thinking about things may reveal more. Of course, we are always fighting against the irreducible complexity camp. However, the fundamental lack of cohesion between quantum and relativistic theories demonstrates there is at least one big thing we are still doing wrong.

Checks out: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hard+error%2Cs...

Isn't the Nintendo Switch popular?