aliasEli

Technically, when someone sees an object flying in the air but cannot identify what it is, that is by definition a UFO. So UFO's are definitely real.

Flying saucers are also real, just throw a saucer in the air.

It looks that you are assuming that all these reports have a common cause.

It is the same kind of fallacy that causes people to believe that because something was observed somewhere and something similar was observed very soon after that but 60 miles away, that it must have been an object that moved at a very high speed.

Even a standard laser and some clouds will work in some cases, such as the Tucson incident.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609973

This is probably the reason why the official term now is "phenomenon", which is way better than object.

For example:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/americas/cuba/report-cu...

Great pictures.

Because it is extremely uncritical of the subject. Any reputable scientist would simply tell that there is simply not enough reliable data to draw conclusions about these phenomena.

Cuba does not really have a good record when it comes to human rights. But its health system does have an excellent reputation. Cuba has long been working on its health diplomacy, by sending their doctors to countries around the world. It is really amazing what they have achieved given the fact that it is really a very poor country.

Only two countries, the US and Israel, voted against this motion. That is pretty amazing [0] when you consider how divided the UN usually is.

Unfortunately, I expect that both the original submission and my comment will very soon be flagged into oblivion.

[0] No, it was not surprising that these countries voted against it, it was surprising that they were the only ones.

It is disappointing to see the coverage of this subject by the BBC.

What caused that explosion? Lots of ordinary materials, like grain or milk powder, can explode in a spectacular fashion, but water???

Most people do not seem to recognize how extremely lucky we have all been that there are such extremely efficient vaccines available.

With many diseases we rely on herd immunity, this means that the virus may be present but that is will not grow exponentially in the population. Although the presence of the delta variant in Israel is worrying, the numbers are still low and there are currently no reasons to expect that they will rise dramatically. The infections are probably mainly caused by persons that are not vaccinated. The largest group of those un-vaccinated people are children, so it is probably a good idea to vaccinate them too.

It is a pity because it was quite a good program.

Is anyone working on a fork yet?

This video fails to answer the question how many X's does it require to screw in a light-bulb.

If you are working on some application that uses cryptography, don't ever use these as a generator for random numbers.

If you are working on some other application you should first start with a cryptographic secure pseudo random number generator. Perhaps, they are too expensive for your application and you might have to switch to something else.

With the moon landings there were no giant scientific problems. All relevant physics was known and it was (correctly) believed that the remaining technological problems could be solved. Yes, this was expensive, but almost all scientists believed it could be solved.

With fusion there is a big scientific problem. You need to confine some extremely hot matter under a high pressure. We currently do not have the science to solve this.

It's a long well-written article, and its contents perfectly matches its title.

Static analysis tools can really be very useful, and they can detect potential errors. But there are always boundary cases. Some rules simply state "Don't do this", which might be a wise rule in general but frequently there are cases where the developer knows the general rule but decides that it does not apply in this particular case.

This is a fine example of why the current patent system is insane. Unless something drastic happens, this patent will probably be assigned to Google. The US patent office is understaffed and lacks the expertise to evaluate claims like this.

When some inventor patents something really novel, that is copied by Google, they will be harassed by patents like these.

It's pretty hard to add some form of security to a system, when security was not an important requirement during the design of that system.

What's probably even more difficult is to get a decent analysis of the possible threats to the system before it is built, while it is being built, and after it has been built.

When security is not an important factor in your operations, you are probably building systems with limited security.

The problem here is that there are no real links to support their position. Can they provide some real legal evidence?

Yes, it might.

My comment assumed that GPL meant the GNU Public License, where you are allowed to use the code, but are restricted to distribute binaries.

AGPL is a different license, and it's probably not legal that code with that license should have been used in their training set.

You might be one of the people that down-voted my submission. This is probably a language problem, I don't think the original MIT license is a permissive license at all in this case.

The term "unit test" can mean a lot of things (which is very unfortunate).

Does it mean:

- A test of some of the requirements that can be done very fast. (That's my preferred form when involves a large part of the code)

- A test of a small piece of code that makes a lot of assumptions about other code by mocking it. (Not a good idea, but it might work in your organization)

P.S. I did not read your post, while I was writing mine.

One of the most obvious problems with mocking is that the team that develops some code usually also develops the mocks that are used for testing it. So precisely the same misunderstandings will be present in the code as in the mocks. In other words you are not really testing anything.

From my experience most errors are at boundaries between code from different teams. Mocking does not help here.

My favorite form of tests are what I usually call subsystem tests. Try to test as much code as is feasible with each single test.

Usually there are parts of your system that can be expensive to setup or use. For example, creating and filling a real database can be slow. In this case you could use an in memory database. Creating it and filling it with some representative data can be very fast. This database could be used by multiple teams, and is vastly superior to mocking.

A similar approach can be used with other expensive parts like remote procedure calls [0], or input from browsers.

This approach works when you design your system so that it can easily switch between using the real (expensive) resources and the ones that are only used for testing. But that is not very difficult.

[0] Both REST and SOAP are RPC

For which code did they use copilot. If it was just software for internal use, there is no real problem with the GPL. That only starts when you distribute binaries based on GPL-ed code.

The entire problem could have been avoided if they had just trained their models on code with a permissive license.

Of course we can trust all people that claim that they were doing nothing illegal. Because they are lawful citizens, we can take their word for it.

But with this approach you can generate outputs that are identical or near identical to some of its inputs. It is clearly that copyright laws apply in this situation.

To put it mildly, he author is not a big fan of space billionaires.

Is there a typo in the title here?

Blender is a very good piece of software. The main problem I usually have with it is finding documentation. Although the official documentation is fairly good, Blender is a huge program, and it can be hard to find the info you need. Also the documentation is not always up-to-date.