creata

Is there any doubt that the agency is lying?

> What are the advantages of using a local LLM currently?

You don't have to send all your thoughts to a third party. That's the advantage.

> All of these are compatible with Office formats.

To a limited extent, for the reasons that the person you're replying to laid out.

I don't understand the author's reasons for dismissing the Euler spiral / clothoid squircle.

> the center of curvature of the circular portion moves as a function of the smoothing parameter ξ — ideally, it would remain fixed.

Why should it ideally remain fixed?

> More importantly, the power of the arc length s in the terms we’ve kept to produce the plots can be as high as nine. In Figma, continuous paths must be representable by cubic Bézier curves

Why didn't they use multiple segments instead of seemingly just truncating the approximation? They mentioned earlier in the article that "designers would rather deal with fewer Bézier curves at the expense of having a mathematically perfect curvature profile"; is that the only reason?

> It is said that such sharing of information still exists in China in many fields

Where can we read more about this?

People said the same thing about cars. People said the same thing about smart TVs. Do you know any cars currently being manufactured that respect your privacy?

https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/privacynotincluded/cate...

> The reality is that by now we should already be at a level where common programming would be like Wolfram everywhere.

What aspects of the Wolfram language should be everywhere? The easy access to lots of datasets? The easy access to lots of mathematical functions? CAS in general?

Got an example?

Because it's hard to imagine real "modularity" between a bunch of functions that can cyclically call each other.

There isn't a killer use case, because tail calls (to yourself or to siblings) can always be easily converted to a loop, and the loop is more idiomatic in most mainstream languages.

You're right that everyone should be using X-Frame-Options: DENY (for ancient browsers, plus CSP for newer browsers), but the author managed to pull it off on Google Docs. If even Google can't consistently stick to it, I feel like I should be worried.

All website operators should read this imo: https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/HTTP_Headers_...

> it has no medical impact on people's life, beyond increasing the need to wear a hat when outside in the Sun for long

The impact on mental wellbeing can be pretty severe, though.

Wasm does count, and you can say the same about Go and others.

Looking at Bun's website (the comparison table under "What's different about Bun?") and what people have said here, the only significant benefit of Bun over Node.js seems to be that it's more batteries-included - a bigger standard library, more tools, some convenience features like compiling JSX and stripping TypeScript types on-the-fly, etc.

It's not clear to me why that requires creating a whole new runtime, or why they made the decisions they did, like choosing JSC instead of V8, or using a pre-1.0 language like Zig.

> Node is built with much more of the system implemented in JS, so it is architecturally incapable of the kind of performance Bun/uWebsockets achieves

That sounds like an implementation difference, not an architectural difference. If they wanted to, what would prevent Node or a third party from implementing parts of the stdlib in a faster language?

> And they never will, until they make people like you and me LOVE Firefox again.

What are the sorts of features you think they should consider adding?

Plus, resources like the Arch Wiki just don't have alternatives on macOS.

> Linux and Win32 filesystem APIs were too different, and translating them made some apps and some workflows seriously suffer.

Is the reverse also true? Does Wine face any similar performance problems?

> i support this but the Smarter Than Me types say it's impossible.

Adobe has been training models on only licensed media. I'm not sure if it's all their models or just some of them, and I haven't seen the results, but someone's doing it.

If you did a writeup of this case, you could change some minds.

In what universe is having things that you do not want shoved on you an invalid reason to be angry?

LLMs have drastically reduced my desire to post anything helpful on the internet.

It used to be about helping strangers in some small way. Now it's helping people I don't like more than people I do like.

To save someone two seconds of searching,

NASA animation of Voyager 2's trajectory (time in the bottom-left corner): https://youtu.be/l8TA7BU2Bvo

> The handler function isn't actually unnecessary, or at least, it isn't superfluous: by default, the signature would include 'a on self as well, and that's probably not what you actually want.

To clarify, I meant the 'a in `Box<dyn Handler + 'a>` in the definition of `process_handler` is unnecessary. I'm not saying that the <'a> parameter in the definition of Handler::handle is unnecessary, which seems to be what you think I said, unless I misunderstood.

No, the use cases of Rust are pretty much the same as the use cases of C++. Most Rust code shouldn't have objects with complicated lifetimes, just like most code in any language should avoid objects with complicated lifetimes.

That's just a weird and unrealistic example, though. Like, why is process_handler taking an owned, boxed reference to something it only needs shared access to? Why is there an unnecessary 'a bound on handler?

In the places where you need to add lifetime annotations, it's certainly useful to be able to see them in the types, rather than relegate them to the documentation like in C++; cf. all the places where C++'s STL has to mention iterator and reference invalidation.

I think this is subjective, because I think Rust's syntax is (mostly) beautiful.

Given the constraint that they had to keep it familiar to C++ people, I'd say they did a wonderful job. It's like C++ meets OCaml.

Do you have any particular complaints about the syntax?

> What's the difference than an adult becoming affected by some subreddit, or even the "dark web", or 4chan forum, etc.

4chan - Actual humans generate messages, and can (in theory) be held liable for those messages.

ChatGPT - A machine generates messages, so the people who developed that machine should be held liable for those messages.

> social connections will form whether you want them to or not

Not true for all people or all circumstances. People are happy to leave you in the corner while they talk amongst themselves.

> it'll seem like the only answer is more numbing

For many people, the only answer is more numbing.

Fyi, the `si` query parameter is used by Google for tracking purposes and can be removed.

The comment seems less clearly-written (e.g., "It can happen for many multiple ways") than how a chatbot would phrase it.