ARandumGuy

No matter how high you set a maximum limit for interactions on social media (followers, friends, posts, etc), someone will reach the limit and complain about it. I can see why Bluesky would prefer a "soft limit", where going above the limit will degrade the experience. It gives more flexibility to adjust things later, and prevents obnoxious complaints from power users with outsized influence.

They're not "accountable to nobody". Assuming they have the votes, congress can revoke any law, at any time, for any reason. And typically laws specifying the appointment of specific people also have provisions for removing that person.

The reason for this is stability. Congress, businesses, international allies, and most US citizens typically don't want things to dramatically change every new presidential administration. And the primary way to ensure that stability is to make it so the same people are working in various government offices from administration to administration. And I think people are quickly learning why that stability is desirable, as the current administration attempts to dismantle it with no consideration for the consequences.

The puzzle design in Grim Fandango really isn't anything to write home about, and if that's the only reason you play adventure games, you're going to be disappointed. But the characters, writing, art, and sheer style are all so good that it makes up for it in my opinion.

Grim Fandango is probably even better now, since you can easily look up solutions to some of the more frustrating puzzles. The remastered version is also very good, changing just enough to make it play well on modern systems, without fundamentally altering the experience.

Totally this. Acoustics in bars and restaurants has gone completely to shit. Even if they don't turn the music up too loud, it can be extremely hard to have a conversation without shouting, even if the place isn't crowded. I understand the need to not have people linger at a popular spot, but there has to be a better way then to make the place actively unpleasant to be in.

> I get part of the strategy is exhaustion and make sure no-one wants to ever work for federal government again

It's difficult to tell what their strategy is. There's so much chaos going on that it's impossible to say for sure what the end game is. But we can make some guesses.

They could be assuming the supreme court overturns the lower courts, allowing them to do everything unopposed. They may be trying to overwhelm the system, allowing at least some stuff to get through. They may be trying to drive out federal employees, weakening the federal bureaucracy. Or they might just be idiots who are moving fast without stopping to consider the consequences of their actions.

Ultimately, regardless of their specific end goal, the best course to stop them is to try and slow them down at every opportunity. We may not be able to fully stop them, but the more we can slow them down, the more we can minimize the damage.

IDK but I think it'd be really funny if Apple switched to using Bing as their default search engine.

My work does a lot of stuff with time and scheduling, and let me tell you having timezone-unaware date/time objects distinct from specific points in time will be so damn useful. The old Date class made it really easy to accidentally screw that up. Third party libraries help, but something as important and fundamental as time really should have a good built-in implementation.

MDN docs tend to be very thorough and well-written. It looks like most of these pages are for various utility functions, each of which has its own page.

We also need to consider that AI is being used as a replacement for things that use a lot less energy. Like, someone "asking ChatGPT" for a simple question is using a lot more energy then using a traditional search engine. This gets worse when AI is shoehorned into random stuff, thus making that stuff less efficient.

How does that affect things in real code bases? I'm with Aeolun on this. I work with Typescript enums all the time, and have never encountered any issues. Maybe the other options work slightly better. But I struggle to see how Typescript enums could cause any problems when used like I'd use enums in any other language.

TBH other then a few neat local multiplayer stuff in NintendoLand, there really wasn't much that actually utilized the dual screen in a way that actually enhanced the game. You couldn't quickly swap between the screens like you could on the DS, because the screens were different distances away and required re-focusing your eyes. This meant that most gamepad usages played the same as if you just pressed a button to bring up your inventory or switch views or whatever.

And that's before you take into account the fact that the biggest titles on the Wii U (Mario Kart and Smash Bros) didn't use the second screen at all. The second screen was a gimmick, and a gimmick that was exhausted pretty quickly.

Obviously there's a balance to be struck. There are certainly schools and teachers that teach arithmetic poorly, and there's a practical limit to the amount of hours spent doing equations before it becomes tedious busywork.

But I still think it's important that kids are taught how to do arithmetic by hand. And part of that will involve repetition, both to help reinforce and practice skills, and so educators can more accurately gauge a student's ability. You can't just bypass the need to sit down and do the work, even if the exact amount of work necessary is debatable.

Why do we teach kids how to do basic arithmetic by hand? After all, calculators are basically ubiquitous at this point. Why waste the time teaching a skill that's not necessary as an adult?

The reason is because doing arithmetic by hand teaches kids how math actually works, while using a calculator just teaches them how to find the answer. This base-level understanding is crucial for understanding more advanced math. But it's also important for making mental estimations, or just having a basic grasp on how the world works.

This is why students using ChatGPT is a problem. If you never put in the actual work in the first place, you never gain any actual understanding. A doctor "great at using ChatGPT" won't know how to check the results carefully if they've relied on ChatGPT for their entire education. Having a baseline skill set is crucial for evaluating LLM output, and for handling situations that LLMs can't handle. And there will always be situations LLMs can't handle, regardless of how advanced genAI becomes.

What I don't understand is, what benefit is there for 99% of companies to get in on the ground floor of LLMs? If you're not developing your own model, you're effectively just beta testing someone else's model. And if the sales pitch of LLMs being able to do basically anything comes true, wouldn't most companies still get the same benefit if they just wait? It seems like a lot of companies are so terrified of missing the boat that they don't sit down and do actual risk analysis.

UUIDs aren't technically unique, they're just designed in such a way that the chance of collisions is very small.

A big part of this is that the possibility space is very large, so the chance of collisions is low. Many UUID versions also determine parts of the UUID via MAC addresses and timestamps, to ensure that different servers are highly unlikely to generate the same UUID.

My point wasn't that you can't find art made by a human that has the characteristics of AI art. My point was more that it's just bad art.

The cat picture really shows the "noisy detail" problem with AI art. There's a lot going on on the area directly above the cat with a crown, as well as on the armrests and the upper areas of the wall background. But it's all random noise, which makes it both exhausting and distracting. A human artist would probably either make those areas less detailed, or give a more consistent pattern. Both would let those parts fade into the background, which would help draw our focus to the cats and the person.

There's other, more general issues too. The front paw on the big cat on the left is twisting unnaturally. The cat on the right with the pendant thing looks like it only has one front paw. The throne looks more like a canopy bed then a throne, with the curtains and the weird top area. The woman's face is oddly de-emphasized, despite being near the center of the piece.

Most of these things are subtle, and can be hard to articulate if you aren't looking closely. But the picture reeks of AI art, and it doesn't surprise me that the author was able to identify it as such right away.

That's one of my problems with AI art. AI art promises to bring your ideas to life, no need to sweat the small stuff. But it's the small details and decisions that often make art great! Ideas are a dime a dozen in any artistic medium, it's the specific way those ideas are implemented that make art truly interesting.

I feel like the comment made by the author's friend captures a lot of my feelings on AI art. AI art is often extremely detailed, but that detail is often just random noise. It's art that becomes worse and makes less sense the more carefully you look at it.

Compared that to human art. When a person makes a highly detailed artwork, that detail rewards looking closely. That detail forms a cohesive, intentional vision, and incentivizes the viewer to spend the time and effort to take it all in. A person could spend hours looking at Bruegel's Tower of Babel paintings, or Bosch's "The Garden of Earthly Delights".

Overall, I've never felt the need to spend the time looking closely at AI art, even AI art that I couldn't tell was AI right away. Instead of rewarding close inspection with more detail, AI art punishes the viewer who looks closer by giving them undecipherable mush.

Satire needs a target to actually be satire. Something can be silly, lighthearted, or humorous without being satire. On the flip side, satire itself doesn't actually need to be funny to be effective satire.

So for your example, what is the dead salmon study satirizing? Is there some other study that did something similar that they're making fun of? Is there a broader scientific movement that they're criticizing?

I concede that there may be a target that I'm not aware of. But I find it more likely that someone just said "what if we put a dead fish in an fMRI", and their colleagues found it funny enough to actually do. Many scientists have a sense of humor, and will absolutely do something just because they think it would be funny.

Naively, 1/(2^{hash_size_in_bits}). Which is about 1 in 4 billion odds for a 32 bit hash, and gets astronomically low at higher bit counts.

Of course, that's assuming a perfect, evenly distributed hash algorithm. And that's just the odds that any given pair of images has the same hash, not the odds that a hash conflict exists somewhere on the internet.

Yeah that issue seems weird to me, because I've never found bezels themselves to be that much of a problem. Like sure, less bezel is better. But I have some pretty wide gaps in my work monitors, and I've never found it to be a problem.

This article, and a lot of "productivity" articles, feel like spending a lot of time and effort for marginal-at-best improvements. I don't know their specific workflow, but I'm pretty sure they could get basically the same amount of productivity with a handful of 1080p monitors.

I think it's less "this asteroid belt is unrealistic," and more "I assumed asteroid belts were dense because that's what it's like in movies."

For a lot of people, they know that super nimble spaceships aren't real, but they may have never thought about asteroid belt density. People often see something in media that seems plausible, and assume that's what it's like in reality, even if the media portrayal was way off. I can guarantee it's happened to you at some point.

I can see why that only appeared in 7 games. It's pretty rare to see a rook in between a king and another rook that are otherwise legally able to castle. Even rarer for someone to get into that position and actually try to castle.

Also that linked game is pretty entertaining. It's not a good game, but it can be fun watching lower ranked players make moves that you'd never see in higher level games. Like, who plays Bb5+ against the Scandinavian? Amazing stuff.

Another wild guess: Lichess could be pre-calculating and caching the legal moves for the most common chess positions. While pre-calculating every possible legal move for every position would be impossible, you could pre-calculate the most common openings and endgames, which could cover a lot of real-world positions. This cache could easily be larger then practical for the client, but a server could hold onto it no problem. This could save on the net processing time, compared to the client determining all legal moves for every position.

The problem with written language is that there's an inherent level of ambiguity. Now, this is fine for stuff read by humans, as we're pretty good at resolving that ambiguity using context and our own personal experience. Computers, however, are not good at ambiguity. They require explicitly defined syntax, as they just can't handle the ambiguous nature of natural language (at least, not without a shitload of processing power for a LLM)

Now, there's no reason we can't have an explicitly defined syntax that reads like normal written language. That's what SQL tries to do, after all. However, explicitly defined "natural" language has the tendency to get very unnatural very quickly. Human language is fluid and evolving in a way that a programming language just can't be. And no amount of emulating written language can eliminate the need to learn a programming language's syntax.

My company uses zod to validate data for HTML requests, and I'd say it works pretty well for that. It lets us detail our data structure in zod, validate the completely untyped HTML data, and be confident that once we reach our actual code, the data is well typed.

Zod feels like a crutch for limitations in Javascript and Typescript. But I've found it to be a very useful crutch, and I wouldn't want to write a Typescript API without it.

That's possible, but I think it's premature to think this is part of some grand plan. What likely happened is that Google estimated the cost to fund a team to shut down ad blockers was less then the money they were losing from ad blockers. Maybe it's part of a larger initiative, but I'd be hesitant to assume that without more evidence.

It's clearly enough of an impact for Google to spend effort killing uBlock on Chrome, and (attempting) to block it on Youtube. Obviously Google is huge, and even a small percentage of users is still a lot of money on the table.

Converting string case is almost never something you want to do for text that's displayed to the end user, but there are many situations where you need to do it internally. Generally when the spec is case insensitive, but you still need to verify or organize things using string comparison.