mbauman

To a CS person, "ordering" is about the arrangement of a list. But pretty much everyone else will think about a *temporal* order of operations. And in that case it is indeed "starting" from the right or left.

It just gets confusing when you're dealing with lots of deferred/lazy operations.

I've been seeing the back-side of this as a mod at the Julia Discourse. Pagerank/SEO spam is ridiculously obvious and trivial to detect/block — links are all that matter. Many GEO spam posts are similarly obvious: someone posting about a cryptocurrency customer support hotline on a programming language forum is definitely spam. But recently spammers/scammers been using AI to _tailor_ posts to look much more authentic, posting "How to use Julia to analyze market statistics" referencing (without links!) a particular crypto exchange and then (sometimes) going back later to edit in phone numbers or the like.

What makes this even more painful is seeing all the good faith answers that such GEO posts spur from the community. It's far more abusive than SEO spam.

Yes! This is a beautiful use-case, thanks to JuMP.

https://jump.dev

> what's the deal with calling depth thickness

It's almost as though the author thought about and cared about the content and exact words he chose. "Thick or Treat" and "Thickening agents" and "Slim pickings" even immediately evoking imagery of a thin slop gruel in my own head.

By using an unexpected word I think I thought more critically about it, in fact. Had the author used depth I would've immediately had more superficial imagery in my own head.

The main point is NIST is _downstream_ of CVE issuance. Yes, they can — and still do — add disputed/rejected tags to CVEs, but in many cases by then it's already "too late." The CVE has an ID and a lifespan of its own.

NIST does not and did-not/cannot/never-has unilaterally "retracted" CVEs or prevented their issuance.

But yes, NIST's situation is not good for the world. The services they provide are hugely valuable.

The problem I have is that there's no way to embed an "uncertainty" into EXIF metadata in a standard way. I just want some photos to be "Summer 1987" or "February 1976" or even "1981-1983"... but I _have_ to invent some complete timestamp down to the second and then just rely upon captions or comments.

But I generally know the dates far better than any AI could guess (based on ages of the individuals I know).

I mean, humans can't draw bikes!

https://themagnet.substack.com/p/why-is-it-so-hard-to-draw-a...

And then they submit them to a CNA and get a CVE assigned, and then _everyone_ needs to deal with the not-actually-a-vulnerability report, especially when the not-actually-triggerable-DOS gets assigned a "Critical" CVSS score from EUVD or NVD.

That's very different; hair doesn't perform membrane transport along its length. The surface of an axon is critical to the cell's functioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axolemma

I loved synergy back in 2005 when it was _actually_ open source! It was probably my first open source contribution! But then it was enshittified and made impossible to build from source in order to support the commercial dreams.

> stochastic parrots thesis (if it has any empirically-predictive content at all

Did you read TFA? This is precisely one of the non-questions that she answers.

Well the comments tend to be superfluous "whats" (describing the code itself) instead of the more helpful "whys." And they're almost never the most useful "why nots".

I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your "ton of random stories constantly being published about Native Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers" are _themselves_ evidence of exactly the sort of unserious reporting that the researcher (NOT NBC) claims; they sideline and obscure the realities of the intellectual aspects.

That's quite amusing; you don't see the connection between "magical powers" and sidelining real intellectual achievements?

Also, Madden is not a master's student anymore. He's a 62 year old doctoral candidate and the lead author on this study.

Sure enough, thanks for the correction!

That version is ~~brightened significantly~~ (edit) a longer exposure; I like the darker one better.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-art002e000193/

Even worse, those features show "100% uptime" pre-existence on the breakdowns page too.

I'm still floored that Andres both found this and didn't ignore it. It's such a testament to an incredible engineer.

(But also, my conspiratorially-inclined mind is quite entertained by the thought of some sort of parallel construction or tip from a TLA.)

Thanks for proving my point perfectly.

This is such a classic example of online discourse in general. There are two options, and folks tribally cling to one or the other without realizing that both are legitimate and well-suited for different situations.

Yes, of course distances are measured starting from 0. But we count discrete things starting at 1. You can do mental gymnastics to enumerate from zero and many programmers are (unfortunately IMO) taught to do so. It's a hard thing to learn that way, so for the folks that have done so, it often becomes a point of pride and a shibboleth.

As a classic example, a four story building has four floors. But you only need to go up three flights to get to the top. You can legitimately call the top floor either 3 or 4, and folks are similarly tribal about their own cultural norms around this one, too.

@dang I think the link should go directly to this topic: https://www.rubyforum.org/t/ruby-newbie-is-joining-the-ruby-...

Right, the correct way here is to simply grant _everyone_ a license to _everything_ under the terms of the AGPL (or whatever). You can then separately license portions under other terms.

You don't need to note the commercial licensing option in the license itself; it's irrelevant to that grant. You just state that elsewhere.

> "by choice because of"

Goodness, that doesn't look like a choice to me.

Forget compilers, SSA is an immensely valuable readability improvement for humans, too.

That's quite the interesting perspective, but I'd say it gives "them" more organization and unified focus than is real. It's an open source language and ecosystem. Folks use it — and gripe about it and contribute to it and improve it — if they like it and find it valuable.

All I can say is that many of "us" live in that tension between high level and low level every day. It's actually going to become more pronounced with `--trim` and the efforts on static compilation in the near term. The fact that Julia can span both is why I'm a part of it.

Willison's razor: Never dismiss behaviors as either malice or stupidity when there's a much more interesting option that can be explored.

OP (and I) can definitely distinguish the two. The trouble is that I can no longer find the humans who are actually posting valuable information.

A highly relevant must-watch here is Bret Victor's Computational Public Space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PixPSNRDNMU

Yes, this really seems like an argument between two contrived straw people at the absolute extremes.

The even bigger challenge is determining _what_ you need to observe in the first place.

As a simplistic analogy, evolutionary designs of FPGA boards can end up relying upon idiosyncratic properties of the board(s) and create circuits that "shouldn't work" based on an idealized electrical circuit model. And they may not be transferable to other boards. In other words, to "understand" some evolutionary FPGA circuits, you need to "observe" more than just the gate configurations and idealized schematic.

Brains are not FPGAs or even circuits, but I think the analogy holds. They're not _just_ idealized representations of spiking neural networks.