1,992 karma · joined August 5, 2024
I am not talking about "security negligence". I am talking about "negligence". The negligence was to not follow standard best practices known for over 20 years which led to disruption in your services.
XKCD 1053 is not a valid excuse for what amounts to negligence in a production service.
The Paris-Sud University was a new name to me. Apparently, this will be the 4th Nobel laureate associated with the university.
Yes, I know the author added a disclaimer:
> PS: I don’t know any Latin, ChatGPT did the translation for me, so there may be some mistakes.
But there aren't just "some mistakes". The Latin is essentially nonsense. The closest meaning I can draw from that phrase is:
"Protect wife, given things, truth."
That's barely coherent, let alone proper Latin. Is "usorem" even a word?
Of course, it's your blog and you're free to post what you like. But I'd hope the HN community would be more discerning. Imagine if someone posted an article with nonsense Fortran code generated by ChatGPT, adding a note like:
"PS: I don’t know Fortran, ChatGPT translated this Python to Fortran for me, so there may be some mistakes."
If the Fortran didn't even compile, would we still upvote it? I doubt it.
And really, why write nonsense Fortran when you could just write clear Python, Go, or Rust that the community very well understands? Likewise, why attempt fake Latin when you can just write plain English, which most people here understand?
How so? In Ada, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Python, etc. parsing is one of the many phases of compiling. Far from being orthogonal problems, parsing is a sub-problem of compiling.
> Yes. A thousand times yes.
Your comment comes off as if it makes an opposing point to the article. My apologies if it wasn't meant that way.
But I want to note that the author agrees with you! The next sentence from the author which you didn't include in your quote says:
> Okay yeah that's actually a pretty good reason not to use it. I can't get into lisps for the same reason. I'm not going to begrudge anybody who avoids a tool because it's ugly.
This is incorrect. You can sure write LaTeX that is intricately dependent on the output dimensions. But you can just as easily write LaTeX that is independent of output dimensions.
Case in point is compiling LaTeX doc to HTML which you'd admit is easily resizable.
Case in point is also writing LaTeX docs for journals or publication where you can easily resize the document to match the publisher's style guide and dimensions by changing the documentclass.
It begins with a prompt directed at Gemini, followed by what appears to be an AI-generated response. Are these actual AI responses or is the developer writing their parting message in a whimsical way? I'm genuinely confused. Help much appreciated!
For example, when I did search, I came across this source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/d.... However, I'm not convinced it supports your point that this trend is 'common' but not in the 40–60 age group. The data show that 5% of people aged 40–60 use it, compared to 12% in the under-40 group. That doesn't strike me as a large enough gap to justify saying it's common in one group but not in the other.
Yes, we don't! And that's perfectly acceptable.
When you're studying a cohort aged 40 to 60, you don't try to reconstruct their exact diet or lifestyle from two decades earlier. You don't rely on their memories from age 20 and treat that as reliable data. It simply isn't.
It's okay not to know what cannot be known, and still move forward with meaningful research. If scientific studies were only allowed to proceed after accounting for every possible confounding variable, then no health research would ever be conducted. None. Zero. Because it's impossible to identify and control for every unknown factor.
What researchers do is control for the known variables, publish their findings, and invite scrutiny. Other researchers then explore new confounding factors, conduct follow-up studies, and expand or refine the conclusions. That's the essence of scientific progress. That's how human knowledge evolves.
It is, frankly, lazy and armchair critiquing to dismiss a study simply because it didn't account for your favorite confounding variable. You know what's not lazy and armchair? Actually conducting research that investigates that variable. And that's when you come to appreciate just how difficult or outright infeasible some of these variables are to measure or control for.
The paper does explore the possibility of a linkage and attempts to justify why the observed relationship may be more than just a simple association. They even go a step further by presenting arguments against the likelihood of reverse causality. That they need to consider reverse causality and prepare a defense against it is sort of admitting that they are far from proving causality.
Here are some excerpts from the paper that illustrate this:
A sensitivity analysis excluding cases at the first follow-up was conducted to examine whether the observed association reflects a possible reverse causality."
Our results, showing the attenuation of the association of ASB with type 2 diabetes after adjustment for body size measures, were consistent with obesity being a confounder of the association."
In addition, to rule out the likelihood of reverse causality, we interpreted appropriate models and conducted sensitivity analyses, which strengthen the robustness of our findings."
What's frustrating is that the paper never explicitly states that causality is NOT established. While they argue against reverse causality, the absence of reverse causality does not, in itself, imply causality. It may still be a case of correlation. So your point is completely valid.
This is actually a solid study, despite what the current top comment might suggest. It's frustrating how frequently shallow, dismissive takes that don't engage with the substance of a paper rise to the top on HN. I genuinely don't understand what drives such upvotes. That's not how science works, folks.
If you're going to criticize a study, the least you can do is read it carefully and refer to specific sections and quote specific excerpts where you believe the authors went wrong. Anything less is just noise.
Where are you pulling these stats from? Do you have any references or do you just keep misrepresenting your personal observations as facts?
I sure do see my 40-60 age group friends and acquaintances going for more diet soda than regular soda. So I find it hard to believe that diet soda is not a common thing in the 40-60 age group.
It is frustrating that for someone who posted strong criticism against a research paper, you keep making bold claims without presenting any references or evidence!
That's me.
Is there any specific issue you face which stops you from compiling old files?
As I mentioned in my other comment, my grad school days documents are still compiling fine.
If you still use LaTeX 2e and you've got all the dependency packages with you, pdflatex should Just Work. right? I can't remember any major change that would outright break your compilation. And I haven't seen such issue too myself. So I genuinely want to know what specific issues you or others face that wouldn't even let you compile your document.
I'm using LaTeX 2e for 25+ years. This has literally never happened to me. If that's not stability, I don't know what is. LaTeX documents I wrote in my grad days still compile for me. I just checked and it does. I do keep the dependency packages myself in my folder.
Has this issue ever happened to anyone? Why would LaTeX distribution getting updated break my documents? It's still the same latex compiler and the same base styles and packages!
Surely LaTeX has full scripting ability even though I wouldn't wish such a punishment on anyone.
Surely Quarkdown's gibberish like syntax is not more concise and more readable than Typst?
And surely the learning curve is not easier than Typst? I'd say the learning curve is more or less the same as Typst.
Surely LaTeX can also produce HTML with tex4ht?