dllthomas

I'm not looking for attributed meeting notes, so much as making it harder for a passing child to inject content.

Thanks, that, yeah. I've looked occasionally but it's been a bit. Necessary feature in a house with a 9yo. I've been thinking about taking a swing at solving my problem without solving the general problem.

Can it tell voices apart?

I ran into a question a while ago that I couldn't find a good answer to, and while it's not exactly on topic this seems like a good place to ask it.

I was working in a detail rich context, where there were a lot of items, about which there were a lot of facts that mostly didn't change but only mostly. Getting a snapshot of these details into approximately everyone's head seemed like a job for spaced repetition, and I considered making a shared Anki deck for the company.

What wasn't clear was how to handle those updates. Just changing the deck in place feels wrong, for those who have been using it - they're remembering right, the cards have changed.

Deprecating cards that are no longer accurate but which don't have replacement information was a related question. It might be worth informing people who have been studying that card that it's wrong now, but there's no reason to surface the deprecation to a person who has never seen the card.

Is there an obvious way to use standard SRS features for this? A less obvious way? A system that provides less standard features? Is this an opportunity for a useful feature for a new or existing system? Or is this actually not an issue for some reason I've missed?

Do you want HypnoDrones? This is how you get HypnoDrones.

> When any country mentioned hits the population of a small or medium US state, let us know how it goes.

I don't know "how it goes" but Poland has the population of a large US state.

> It isn't actually possible for fixing a bug to break a workaround.

That's not true. For instance, if there's a bug in formatting, that might be worked around by handing the unintended formatting. But now you're (maybe) not handling the intended formatting, and a fix would break you.

Well, no, it indicates that it is sometimes impossible at a fundamental level. That doesn't speak to whether it's a good idea some of the times when it is possible.

I use tmux (or screen) as a bag for holding context. I set an environment variable before spawning it, and then key a lot of things in my .bashrc off that environment variable so I get context-specific functions/aliases/vars/etc, and keep them when I open a new window in an existing tmux. The single best part of this is separate histories for my development vs system administration vs whatever, although the rest is still quite useful.

> some people favor one parent, and some the other

A number of the responses here say things like this, and I'm picking this one somewhat arbitrarily to call out that "people" isn't the only dividing line - some people very much favor different sides of it at different times, in different moods, in different contexts, to varying degrees.

Yeah, if all the context you want is the backtrace, that works just fine.

> the difference in Rust between just returning an error (a ? at the end of the expression that can return one) vs adding context is much higher

I don't disagree with what you've said, but I think this is likely to be read too strongly.

Adding a map_err before the ? is only a big step up in verbosity because the ? alone is so very terse.

Nit, but you also have to remove unsafeCoerce, some pointer stuff, and possibly a few other things.

Perhaps Devil's advocate, but my rebuttal would be that we're not necessarily comparing similar gains to correctness as to optimisation, and that perhaps the correctness gains can be better attained another way where the optimisation gains cannot.

(Personally I find a type checker tremendously valuable for communicating with myself - and my team, I suppose - about assumptions being made in other parts of the program, which can probably be accounted "correctness".)

"Wait, what did I change that impacted that test?"

An intersection between code coverage and a git diff once answered that handily for me.

No, the crime isn't staying in. The crime (if it is one) is choosing to stay in. If he reports on messages from 6mo ago with an auto-delete of 1wk, he was aware of it roughly 6mo ago (and taking it seriously enough to preserve things).

Though tbh I might take Bozo over Columbus.

> Can you do the first two years of education and credits at a community college, and transfer to a state school for the last 2 years?

That's what I did (albeit at a very different time in my life) and it worked well. Community colleges are usually quite supportive of students taking a light load for longer - it's a common need among their (actual and potential) students for a variety of reasons.

> UBI will not increase supply or decrease demand

Actually, I contend that it can increase supply of "housing sufficiently near sufficient income" by improving some marginal (existing or potential) housing.

Many devils in the details, of course.

I remember dragging my wife there ages ago. Being a vegetarian, she was concerned there wouldn't be much for her until she saw there was a section of the menu labeled "Artichokes"

It seems relevant to keep in mind that, IIUC, Octavian believed (or pretended to believe) that he was saving the Roman republic.

Limping along is sometimes better than crashing. It's highly context dependent.

You can't point to one of them, but you can point to infinite sets of them.

What I do is split up my work by context into different screen (or tmux, depending on mood when I set up the computer) sessions. I have a script that attaches one by name if it's present and otherwise creates one with the name in question after setting an environment variable that's therefore inherited by any shells spawned in that screen session. Various things in my bashrc then look at that environment variable to point things at a context specific config directory, including setting HISTFILE to a context specific history file and sourcing a context specific bashrc (in which I often cd to a relevant directory and may set some variables, functions, and aliases specific to the context).

Nah, there's a lot of space between "this should be the favored interpretation" and "this is strictly implied" - especially in the context of a math puzzle!

The original wording was "You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat."

I think there's a good argument that the intended interpretation should be the favored one. If he doesn't use the knowledge to always reveal a goat, why did they bother specifying that he has the knowledge?

But it still doesn't quite explicitly say that he's not picking randomly.

> For example, when someone accuses you of taking money out of the register, it would be an example of whataboutism to point that the person accusing you does it too.

I don't think it would. Or at least, I don't think it necessarily would. "You do it, therefore it's not bad, therefore I'm not wrong" is a reasonable argument that is not distraction. "All these other people also do it and it is treated as de minimis at worst, and yet you're singling me out for inappropriate reasons" may be reasonable depending on context or may be somewhat abusive... but it is a different argument than "Whataboutism". Bringing up that you do it, too, purely (or mainly?) as a distraction can probably reasonably be accounted Whataboutism, but it's a distractingly noncentral example because of its proximity to those other arguments.

> If the real argument is that not disclosing vulnerabilities is not actually a bad thing, then the fact that China also doesn't do it is completely irrelevant.

Other agents having made the same decision is perhaps some evidence that it was a reasonable decision, although it very much depends on context.

"Whataboutism" is pointing out other bad things to excuse or distract from the bad thing I'm doing.

Other countries doing the same thing is an argument about whether the thing is actually bad, and could be valid.

I thought we actually ran a surplus for a year or two? My impression is the "how", though, was "take in more revenue than expected because of the tech bubble", which isn't exactly a "how" we could or should replicate.

32 is less than 38, regardless of the political valence.

On the grounds that I'm, y'know, human I will grant that I'd probably find myself filling in the details of where exactly the constitutional lines are drawn somewhat differently in line with my policy preferences, but the question wasn't whether this is within bounds of the Constitution, but whether we ought to (morally) consider the Constitution amended anyway because of the electoral victory. My answer to that will always be no - both because of the numbers and also because the election conflates a bunch of questions where ratification asks just the one question directly.