GrinningFool

On the other hand, there are million(s) of gasoline trucks on the road and thousands(?) of electric.

> especially when the battery is huge and fully charged.

Huh, TIL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10973-018-7899-y

I think the bar should be higher. Incomprehensible is not justified by an interesting topic.

I don't see anywhere that said it was unverified. I would assume it came with evidence.

Did you look closely at what it had done? It's possible to save a lot of time on CI by omitting tests, for example...

Asking in the US seems to risk a faux pas these days. "Why do you assume I'm 'from' somewhere else?"

That's irrelevant, the context was "Or we just go somewhere else that's cheaper, because capitalism means competition." Amazon is making it so that's less of an option, effectively regulating [portions of] the market through their size and leverage.

Amazon's regulation often means sellers are blocked from selling the same items at a lower price elsewhere.

It seems those classes of things are more important than ever. It's not about how tedious it is - it's about the models being able to build accurate context and understanding. All the same things that made it better for humans also makes it better for models. More specifically in this context, well-maintained code results in fewer bugs and lower token usage.

I tend in the other direction when I can (for components and microservices - harder for monorepos): I encourage refactors on a continual basis, as it prevents the models from getting bogged down with the way the system used to behave across changes.

You can already do that in regular firefox. I think in this case, it's adding the capability to enable/disable via policy at the enterprise level.

I think there's a time-spent curve. If you put enough time into iterating and refining with attention to arch and design (weeks or months) then it might be worth sharing. If you've done it in days or a week, probably not.

I used to put it first for convenience, but got increasingly paranoid about something same-named getting slipped into my ~/.local/bin; now it lives at the end.

My cat does both. He will sit in human spots hoping the human will join him and perhaps be better furniture.

And he will sprawl all over the dog bed,with the intent of rubbing in that he is there and the dog is not going to take it.

Indeed. I would much prefer to read someone's poor English over their fluent LLM.

For me (not the OP) I see the patterns 'The X is the Y', 'Every X is a Y' (both of which are there) and llm-sense tingles. Add in Not A, B, C or Z and I'm increasingly convinced it's LLM generated text.

Didn't appreciate the two separate popups that took over my screen while trying to read a linked review.

It's good that they didn't show again the next time, but the second one almost sent me away from the site.

Right now, we are pretty much guaranteed that they can access the data. As opposed to no guarantees that they can't.

I'm not clear the point of your post. Is it to say that what we had before is not guaranteed safe, so let's do this worse centralized thing because reasons?

Perhaps once they all agree to calling it "superintelligence", these troubles will go away.

But the code doesn't always have the answer to "why". At best that means the commit-writer has 'guessed' at why.

On a smaller scale, driving through the mountains and seeing the tunnels where we said "screw it, we're going through" is also pretty amazing.

Be careful with the goals you give for writing tests. Telling it that you want 100% coverage can often lead to performative tests that don't validate anything meaningful.

Fair, but isn't that the nature of these accusations? It's almost always one party's word against another's. So insufficient corroborating evidence seems to mean no witnesses or paper trail.

The criterion for being considered false accusations in that table seems to be 'no charges filed'. Even in those cases, the disclaimers are pretty strong:

> The police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounded" criteria.

> It is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies.

I think it's a matter of trust. How many times has Meta proven untrustworthy over the years? Do we have reason other than their pinky-promise -- backed by the potential for nuisance fines and lawsuits -- to assume they should get it now?

Absolutely; though in context of the article, names aren't being named and nobody's being accused. It's literally a private-ish list of "stay away from/be careful around these people".

Your source doesn't really say what you're stating though. The ranges seem to be 4-13%, with the majority closer to 8. The one that was highest for the US (10%) was a self-reporting survey that asked people if they had been falsely accused -- surely not the most reliable method.

While we can easily find a ton of documented cases of sexual assault, cases of false accusations seem relatively sparse.

> Posted article has nothing on my data ending up in Kenya.

Did you think they were making it up? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q33nvj0qpo

I couldn't conceive of a world in which I'd provide meta with video of my family. Or... anything, really.

I think the license was the best tool available for the ideology around ownership.

All of this is true - yet in between calls of the loop, they don't exist.