1,083 karma · joined October 13, 2016
Hugo Weaving laughs manically.
It assigns this to the original The Matrix and doesn't mention the sequels. I guess it can't distinguish between them?
Edit: And another one :)
A western hero wants to retire but is forced into a last big battle against all odds by his biggest fan.
(My Name is Nobody)
Aaand another one:
Two men identify classical music pieces by the ads that use them as background music.
(The Intouchables)
And frighteningly good at guessing what I'm throwing at it. Makes a good reverse guessing game: Find something it doesn't get right.
My only success so far:
A cleaner is hopelessly out of his element when his victim wakes up.
(La Femme Nikita)
I'd wager a big part of it is also the same politics based asymmetry that's visible everywhere; like nobody ever got fired for buying IBM or people only get credit for managing a crisis, not preventing it in the first place.
The steam engine wouldn't have had its impact without the possibility for e.g. precision engineered pistons, and any industrialization would have been severely impaired without the possibilities that the distributed production of exchangeable parts (even as simple as screws, nuts and bolts) to established norms came with.
I can understand that from an ecosystem perspective (at least to a degree), but based on language merits alone? Hard nope.
Also the swamp camp is really close to some rather deadly creatures if you're not careful in the early game.
"I tried to $ACTION and $FUNCTION throws an error." Followed by awkward silence (or the written equivalent in chat rooms).
Great, why are you telling you me/us about it? What do you expect from me/us? If you're not even willing to produce some text with a question mark at the end, why should anyone bother to invest their time in helping you out?
Even if that weren't the case, lead times for tasks will always increase with more utilization; see e.g. [1]: If you push a system from 80% to 95% utilization, you have to expect a ~4.75x increase in lead time for each task _on average_: (0.95/0.05) / (0.8/0.2)
Note that all except the term containing ρ in the formula are defined by your system/software/clientele, so you can drop them for a purely relative comparison.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman%27s_formula
Edit: Or, to try to picture the issue more intuitively: If you're on a highway nearing 100% utilization, you're likely standing in a traffic jam. And if that's not (yet) strictly the case, the probabilty of a small hiccup creating one increases exponentially.
And yet, as I said, if the same thinking gets applied to e.g. a store of JSON documents (like ELK), chances are good the thing will ruin the UX for countless people who have to deal with the result. Note that you need exactly no hash maps to store the JSON as it is text.
To expand your analogy: …and yet roads are built so that you can drive your regular car or a box car over them, depending on your use case. You make the choice. A JSON library that doesn't afford such choices (and isn't hyper focused on performance) isn't a good one in my book.
Edit: As a sidenote: Or do you mean a freight train wagon? Then replace "road" with "rails" and "car" with "draisine" :)
> An object is an unordered collection of zero or more name/value pairs, [...]
Further, since RFC 7159:
> JSON parsing libraries have been observed to differ as to whether or not they make the ordering of object members visible to calling software. Implementations whose behavior does not depend on member ordering will be interoperable in the sense that they will not be affected by these differences.
Both are in the current version (RFC 8259).
OTOH, I find the "but the order is not supposed to be guaranteed!" debate REALLY stupid when it comes to software where it's clear that at some point, a human will have to look at the content and correlate it with another system.
There's nothing more evil than re-shuffling JSON just for the fun of it and making everyone who has to look at the result miserable. Yes, I'm talking about you, ELK devs.
Edit: (And/or whoever wrote the underlying Java/Go libs they use for JSON that don't allow developers to patch ordering in. I remember reading GitHub issues about this.)
Letting an LLM loose on a real system without containing it in a sandbox sounds about as predictably disastrous as letting a glorified chess program run all ENCOM operations…
For a more "technical" argument how gameplay mechanics can be a unique way to deliver an emotion to the player (arguably a major part in the role of art): Brothers: A Tale of two Sons. You'd have to make sure that she finishes it, though (estimate: ~3h).
Two trippy games that defy categorization (but won't be good examples for someone not willing to learn mechanics/logic in depth): Thumper and Cocoon.
Note that "types have been written down" != "the program was written with static typing". See, for example, what's doable with clojure.spec.
While loose, "from the hip" code (w.r.t. typing) often correlates with the use of dynamically typed languages, we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming a total causality there.
(Also, I still find the number of people willing to put e.g. `object` parameters in their public C# APIs concerningly high. Not that one has to deal with such APIs all the time, but they're not exactly eradicated, either.)
Slow, disorganized, delaying every navigation, screwing up things as simple as copy+paste and other basic functions (Teams: muting/unmuting with a headset in voice calls, Jira: apparently, simple text templates in tickets are impossible (wtf?)), are impossible to search through successfully,… the list seems endless.
I just learned this recently. Intuitively, I had assumed that I could .gitignore a file and have it not show up in `git status`, even after staging it with `git add -f` and committing it this way.
Turns out: That's not how it works. Instead, the .gitignore entries simply don't count for any already tracked files.
(Yes, I know about `git update-index --assume-unchanged` but that has its own set of drawbacks…)
Of course, the RockPi doesn't give you any KVM like functionality, though.
Well, one glaring issue with the assumption of the quality of LLM output being mostly dependent on a large volume of examples online would be Sturgeon's law.
The logistical impacts from that would yield plenty of storytelling material: If you want to travel back in time, you need some ancient cellar that has been undisturbed since the target timeframe. If you want to skip forward, you need to establish that cellar, and round trips are limited by the space available.
Is this what you meant?
But, to note: There's another alternative that should mostly still work here, even in the absence of Ctrl: Alt-Backspace
Of course, there are still more creative ways. Like
:.! kill -9 $(pgrep -u $(whoami) vim)-- Dr. Ian Malcolm
Edit: Oh, also, since vim ships with xxd: xxd -r -p is a very useful thing to know.