parasense

No... for pete sake no!

The whole point of mocks for data base is not to test schema changes, it's to test a unit of code. These most certainly do not change the additional requirement of integration testing with real database tables. That usually happens after all the unit tests, obviously, because why spin up a big heavy database test pipeline if the code logic fails.

I did a bunch of research essays into medical uses of AI/ML and I'm not terrified, in fact the single most significant use of these technologies is probably in or around healthcare. One of the most cited uses would be expert analysis of medical imaging, especially breast cancer imaging. There is a lot of context to unpack around breast cancer imaging, or more sucinctly put, controversial drama! The fact is there is a statisticalluy high rate of false positives in breast cancer diagnostics made by human doctors. This reality resulted in a big overall policy shift to have women breast scanned less often, depending on their age, or something like that. Because so many women were victimized with breast surgery that turned out to be false positive or whatever. The old saying to make an omlet one must break a few eges is sometimes used, and that's a terrible euphamism. AI has proven to be better at looking at medical image, and in the case of breast cancer seems to out perform humans. And of course the humans have a monotonous job revewing image after image, and they want to be safe instead of latter being sorry, so of course they have high false possitives. The machines never get tired, they never get biased (this is a bone of contention), and they never stop. Ultimatly a human doctor still has to review the images, and the machines simply inform if the doctor is being too agressive in diagnosis, or possibly missing something. The whole thing gets escellated if there is any disparity. The out come from early studdies is encouraging, but these studies take years, and are very expensive. One of the biggest problems is the technology proficiency of medical staff is low, and so we are now in a situation where software engineers are cross traning to be at the level of a nurse or even doctors in rare cases.

Hi bc569a80a344f9c,

I also use a table for university, instead of a laptop I've got the bigass Samsung s9 ultra (or whatever it's called) because it's near A4 size for reading PDF papers, etc..

This tablet has a special accessory that is a screen overly that is textured glass, so the "Writing feel" seems more like a pencile or whatever paper-like... It's marketed towards artists or whatever creative types. I think the Remarkable has that feature built into the screen without any accessory. You might see if you can find something like that for Apple tablets.

As far as a writing or note taking table goes, for people in the University, we really do need integration with things like Google or Microsoft. The whole idea that a minimal table requires the user to be subject to gatekeeping things like a computer/mobile app to do basic input/output of documents is quite frankly absurd. There is nothing distracting about saving a document into OneDrive or Google Drive.

I really do suspect the whole "focus" of Remarkable, and similar, is a cope. I totally get people with ADHD exist, and those people appreciate the kind of devices that actively prevent them from straying off their path.... but this is ridiculous.

Hi Locutus_

I'm one of those people with "analysis paralysis" towards the E-Ink ecosystem. Remarkable Paper Pro came out while I was researching, and made me aware of the set of dichotomies around the notion of minimalism vs full blow Android, black & white only tablets vs Galery-3 vs Kaliedo, front lights vs having a screen closer to the surface without front lights...

It's difficult to enter the e-paper market.

For me, I'm a science student currently struggling through classes like Integral Calculus, Linear Angebra, etc... So I'm usually writing math equations.

My first question is how does Remarkable handle math writing? I'm guessing there is nothing to read things like a handwritten Sumation, or Integral, and then convert to Tex ?

Is black and White really the best kind of e-ink, or is that the prejudice or bias of those old time e-ink users who have been using the tech a while now? What about screen size, is the 10.3 really that great (smaller that A4 paper)?

Is Remarkable's "minimalism" claims actually legitimate, or more of a coping mechanism to explain away their apparent lack of features?

This sounds like a cliche stereotypical IT problem. And firstly, not a not a bad thing, because it's new to you. Luckily there are mountains of best-practices for addressing this issue. Picking one feather from the big pile, I'd say your situation screams of Problem Management.

https://wiki.en.it-processmaps.com/index.php/Problem_Managem...

Your on-calls folks need a way to be free of the broader problem analysis, and focus on putting out the fires. The folks in problem management will take the steps to prevent problems from ever manifesting.

Once upon a time I was into Problem Management, and one issue that kept coming up was server OS patching where the Linux systems crashed upon reboot, after having applied new kernel, etc. The customers were blaming us, and we were blaming the customer, and round and round it went. Anyhow, the new procedure was some thing like this... any time there was routine maintenance that would result in the machine rebooting (e.g. kernel updates), then the whole system had to be brought down first to prove it was viable for upgrades. Low-and Behold, machines belonging to a certain customer had a tendency to not recover after the pre-reboot. This would stop the upgrade window in it's track, and I would be given a ticket for next day to investigate why the machine was unreliable. Hint... a typical problem was Oracle admins playing god with /etc/fstab, and many other shenanigans. We eventually got that company to a place where the tier-2 on-call folks could have a nice life outside of work.

But I digress...

> Opex ...

Usually that term means "Operational Expenditure", as opposed to "Capex" or Capital Expenditure. It's your terminology, so it's fine, but I'd NOT say those kind of things to anybody publicly. You might get strange looks.

I'd say let one or two of the on-call folks be given a block of a few hours each week to think of ways to kill recurring issue. Let them take turns, and give them concrete incentives to achieve results. Something like $200 bonus per resolved problem. That leads us into the next issue, which is monitoring and logging of the issues. Because if you hired consultants to come-in tomorrow, and you don't even have stats... there's nothing anybody could do.

Good luck

Is this going to murder those fancy shell scripts that self-extract a program appended to the tail, which is really just an encoded blob of some kind, presumably compressed, etc.. ???

Honestly, don't care...

The machines simpley obey their instructions, which was presumably to fluff out some words about who scored points, who defended from those who wished to score points, etc...

Ignoring the halftime events seems like a plausibly sane thing for a sports stats fanatic to have happen, and that's exactly what happened here.

Was this an AI/ML geneerated thing? I would question your definition of AI, unless a serries of IF/ELSE statements satisfies your concept of AI... It's just following the rules it was given.

Back in the old days, early 1990s Net Neutrality actually meant something, and was not an overloaded nebulous term like today. It was very simple, being a boiler-plate contract clause between Internet routers, such as universities that peered with eachother. In peering agreements there are several contractual clauses, and the net neutrality was simply sayign that each side of the agreement would forward packets without any interference. In some cases this causes one side to disproportionatly overload the other, but with increased peering the load would ballance out as time went. Many universities had this kidn of agreement with other universities they peered with back in the days of inter-academic networks. No reason to router over the internet when reasearchers can direectly access paperes on the backside, and everything was peachy... Net Neutrality meant something, and it was a very concrete idea.

Transiting services changes things, those are not exactly peering agreements, it more like a company connecting one university to another, and that traffic was interfered with... usually to simply offload the packets/frames off the network as quickly as possibly, or in other cases to not impact other higher paying customers.... and those packets/frames would transit over a crappy legacy network to be dumpped on the other side with little care for quallity beyond the minimum agreement.

This is why it's so weird for consumers to say they get to have Net Neutrality, because consumers are not normally peering with other consumers, or universities, or whatevery industry. Their just end nodes on the network, and there is fundamentally nothing to be neutral about.

When it comes to netflix complaining about some ISP refusing to peer with them for free, it's also very strange, because there is no mandate to freely peer with anybody. And, when a traffic hogs asks to peer with you (as an ISP) that would certainly entail a higher level of network management or infrastructure. So again, these net neutrality crusaders are very strange when looked at in perspeective of the OIG net neutrality.

Should the internet be a common carrier, in my humble opinion probably yes. But that's orthogonal to the meaning of Net Neutrality. The point is it's an overloaded term that means nothing anymore.

Paired characters...

That's an interesting topic. Do you happen to know if UTF-8 contains more "pair" characters? In Latex we call these delimiteres, but that's just my limited experience coming in from math side. I tend to agree that it would be helpful to have more kind of nesting/pairing/grouping/delimiting characters. The problem is my imagination is limited to what I know from the ASCII world, and so it goes... no idea what new sets would look like.

Also, the whole thing about "velocity" is just weird. It's as if some marketing goon heard the word "Velocity" and decided to over load the term in a manner that does not mean Velocity in the mathematical sense. Like in Calculus... the velocity curve is the first derivative of the linear graph, and the accelleration curve is the 2nd derivative. And for that matter, who cares about velocity, we have always wanted accelleration which sorta yields velocity. The problem with velocity, it's a dumb idea, because if I drop a rock from a tall building, it builds velocity as it free-falls down, and so it goes -- you have differetn kinds of velocity, but you only really have one kind of accelleration.

Another issue, as the blog points out, story points are a simple scallar number, and you cannot easily say how that sum is factored into risk, complexity, effort, etc... So why even have it? Clearly a story needs to be a kind of vector with these properties (risk, complexity, effort...) set to possitive or negative values, and then do the typical vector math to plot the dirrection and magniture of the story in the n-dimensional space... Then, one can actually calculate stupid ideas like velocity or accelleration to speak in the language of project/program managers.

Ultimatly the managers need a way to quantize the units of work done by development staff to better plan, and that's understandable, yet really hard. I think putting the cart before the horse is usualyl a dumb idea, and things should go back to measuring performan after the work is done, instead of estimating performance before work begins. Nobody wants to commit to a performance contract for each and every task ad nausium, and thats what happens durring sprints.

Yeah, Europe has an interesting way of maintaining legal fictions.

The geographical naming rights is one such thing. Anybody anywhere can make any kind of cheese, but one cannot say the cheese is parmesian (or any other given example) cheese without being located in a certain region. There was a famouse case where a cheese maker in itally opened a new factory on the other sside of town which happened to be across the lambardi river, and suddenly they were no longer able to say that cheese was whatever kind of cheese...

That is just one example of many... why legal fictions are bad arguments in Europe, and don't work internationally. One cannot demand other people unsee things they have seen (wipe their brain memory), and so it goes it's equally unjust to demand other people delete photos of them they have seen and recorded in photos.

It's a lot more nuanced than that, and in some cases the privacy ideas are fully justified, but you get the idea.... there cannot be absolutism in either direction.

> Is it actually retrieving the page on the fly though?

They are able to do so.

> How do you know this?

The access logs.

> Even if it were - it’s not supposed to be able to.

There is a distinction from data used to train a model, which is the indexing bot with the custom user-agent string, and the user-query input given to the aforementioned AI model. When you ask an AI some question, you normally input text into a form, and the text goes back to the AI model where the magic happens. In this scenario, instead of inputting a wall text into a form, the text is coming from a url.

These forms of user input are equivilent, and yet distinctly different. Therefore it's intelectually dishonest for the OP to claim the AI is indexing them, when OP is asking the AI to fetch their website to augment or add context to the question being asked.

Sometimes when I'm being lazy, say for example I have a variable with some folder/file absolute path... I'll convert the slashes to spaces, and word split there, sending the results into the stack.

    $ readarray -d '/' <<<${PWD:1:-1}
    $ echo ${MAPFILE[@]}

and you get a nice list of folders you can push/pop as you wish...

Not to down play StarLink, but actually... this amazing impressive reliable video stream is capable from any orbiting satelite. What's different here is that Starship is so massively huge, something like several meters in diameter, like maybe 7~9 meters, or something like that. Anyhoo, that the interference from the plasma envelope... does not fully envelope the whole rocket. There is a bunch of surface on the backside of the rocket not subject to the plasma, which is something liek fire made of electrons stripped from their atomic nuclus, and so causes elctromagnetic effects. Since the plasma doesn't go all around, any satelite can communicate, not just Starlink.

Ugh...

I used to have this conversation on a monthly basis with co-workers. Many people seem to incorrectly believe that network speeds are measured in base-2 (binary) where in fact they are measured in base-10, just like a hard drive. And, just like misunderstanding of hard drive capcity, network bandwidth is misunderstood to be greater than it actualyl is.... because people percieve bandwidth in the same base as the thing they send through the wire... a thing usually measured in 8-bit bytes, which are NOT 10-bit bytes. The correction of 2-bits per unit byte quickly magnifies to be a pretty significant error. That error is something like 1GbE being actually capable of handling 119 MiB persecond, rather than 125 MiB persecond.

> the net effect is that margins for leading node compress from the increased competition.

That is true in perfectly competetive markets, but I'm skeptical about that idea holding true for high-end chip nodes.

I'm not sure there is enough competition with Intel joining the market alongside TSMC, Samsung, and all the other (currently) minor players in the high-end space. You might see a cartel form instead of a competative market place, which is a setup where the higher margin is protected.

My best guess is the price will remain high, but the compression will happen around process yields. You could successfully argue that is the same as compressing margins, but then what happens after peak yield? Before prices compress, all the other compressable things must first squeeze.

Seems to me people are not easily impersonated.

However, the false belief that a proxy persona, such as remote telephone, video call, or any other non in-person interaction are what give rise to impersonation.

Might as well simply say that all persona non-gratis communications are unenforcable.

I could really care less what Rob Pike things about programming rules, coming from the person who things capitalising is a great way to export things, ignoring that capitalised characters are mostly just a Latin thing, and so the whole concept of his toy language is just that... forever a silly toy language.

I used to work on AI.

Now I work on Artificial Stupidity...

Jokes aside, this is ludicrous. The president cannot enforce this regulation over open source projects, because code is free speech going back to the 1990s ATT v BSD case law, and many other cases the establish how source code is an artistic form of expression, thus protected speech.

The president has no authority to regulate speech, so they can pretty much fuck off.

To quote the tweet:

> We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

Let's break that down.

* DARVO - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

You might say "Gas lighting" or "Deflection" in colloquial terms, and then understand the 2nd sentence:

> We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused.

That is saying that we are confused, and experiencing angst. As if we do not appreciate or understand the harmless thing. It's an apology at first, but then simultaneously degrades the audience as "confused", as if the audience did not understand the message.

Nextly, we see:

> We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy.

Take note the ordering of the 2nd list, and the weird run-on of the first list into the second. They are "Listening" and "Talking" to... The author of these words seems to the type of mind who wants to emphasis the fakeness first, but then minimize the reality last. Read that as "we are not listening, and will be talking to...", and the 2nd list goes the same way, pretty much ignore all the stuff up-front, and look at the last part where is says "partners". Full translation: "We are talking to our Partners, while monitoring dissident employees (some of whom called in bomb threats to the SF office earlier this week), identifying defectors in the influencer community, and auditing belligerent customer accounts likely to evade the licensing.

> Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

Again, look at the last part of the writing... the writer does that, they probably mentally compartmentalize the bad news, and mention last. We are reading a not so masterful manipulator, somebody not quite proficient in their personality disorder, whatever that might be... Borderline, Sociopath, Narcissist, or whatever....

> For the majority of people who don't use their SUVs off road, this seems irrational.

Because that's a kind of regulatory fiction, right there.

So let's cut the crap!

For the majority of the so-called SUV market the "s" in SUV is a long lost myth, and if we're being honest then it's just Utility-Vehicle (UV). But you say they sit higher off the road, perhaps that's technically correct, but actually false when compared to off-road vehicles. But we've already acknowledged SUV's are not really off road vehicles, but rather normal passenger vehicles with normal road tires, normal suspensions, and lower center's of gravity. The Model-y is really just a slightly taller/longer version of the model-3. But how much higher, well if you look at the ground clearance, then it's only ~1 inches higher off the ground. But overall the vehicle is taller, will a larger overhead canopy, and the seats are places over booster blocks to raise the eye-level higher. It's really an illusion, the Model-y is really just a sedan, that technically meets the minimum requirements to say it's an SUV. You can safely consider the modern SUV as the equivalence of old-school station-wagons.

If it waddles like a duck... quacks like a duck... you might be dealling with ducks my dude.

Given the 50 years, I'd say the original investment has paid off many times over, and all the generic brands got their cut. It's more than fair to society to allow the medicine to go over the counter.

> The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s website says that while rage rooms themselves aren’t illegal, smashing up “e-waste” including printers is. It will investigate any rage rooms that smash e-waste and offer a button for visitors to report new rage rooms in their area as an environmental concern.

That's funny, California! I'd be curious to see what exactly is illegal about smashing trash, in particular e-waste. Presumably there is something toxic, but I'm skeptical. at the very least the toxic parts could be subtracted from the smash, but that depends on California's perception of toxic. We all know California has a very progressive view of what is toxic, so I'd assume that's an expansive topic.

Ultimately I would argue this conduct is covered by freedom of speech, but that depends. IF the event is documented with photography, video, or even has any kind of spectator audience... then it's clearly a form of exhibition, and speech.

But even actors performing probably have to obey OSHA regulations, and so it goes...

This is ridiculous.

I think the cloud instance is a pretty good option, and is effectively what the old-gangsta CentOS team was doing, with more or different steps. Back in the old days the RPMs were manually imported, there was no RH provided pipeline to get unbranded RPM sources. So it's really not a big deal to go back to the bad old ways, and if they want to ignore the new shiny CentOS stream way of things, well they are free to be as masochistic as they desire. Certainly nobody is forcing math students to use a graphing scientific calculator if they instead prefer to use a slide rule, because we sent men to the moon with slide rules... so I see no point in complaining about Linux neckbeards preferring to stay with the crufty old ways of importing package sources devoid of GIT history, or any modern pleasantries provided by CentOS Stream. I actually respect these rebuilders, although I think they are zealots to some extent, they are zealots in the good way, highly principled on the idea that software builds should be reproducible, for the sake of validating the software supply chain. But there is an insidious side, their user community is not aligned with the noble ideals of rebuilds, and tend to want the value without the costs. It's one thing to rebuild packages, and another to spin a compose of those rebuilt packages into a distro. That's what RH is apparently all bothered about, and I cannot blame them to some extent. But that said, the user community around the foot hills is still the RH user community for them all the way up high on mount Olympus. So I think Rocky, Alma, or whoever else will still get the package sources, no biggy. But what I wonder about is how RH will treat subscribers who deploy RH and the rebuilds.

> This isn't that. This largely seems to be people who are not paying for RHEL demanding Red Hat allow them to continue not paying for it but receive its value.

Well... I am not so sure about that. As I wrote above, it's actually easier to make a copy-cat of RHEL today by leveraging CentOS Stream than anytime before. So it's not about costs, but perhaps more about the inconvenience of switching off the old workflow for the new hotness.

Red Hat has no technical self interest in perpetuating an old legacy service considering that CentOS has itself migrated to CentOS Stream. Please remember that maintaining that CentOS git repo was really a self-serving activity, to help CentOS project rebuild RHEL packages using the clunky old workflow. In reality supporting the old workflow was never an act of charity, Red Hat did that for whatever business reasons following the CentOS take-over. Certainly the old workflow benefited other folks beyond CentOS community, namely the other copy-cat rebuild distributions.

And certainly, as you have argued, there is the side-effect of the old legacy service benefiting copy-cat distros, and by extension the cost-free user community. But as I argue, not necessarily opposing your view, but offering a counter point... it's more of an inconvenience that some folks seem to wilfully or genuinely misunderstand. The misunderstanding is that Red Hat is killing copy-cat distros, and they are not. Super smart & motivated people will still copy-cat Enterprise Linux, just like they always have. And certainly, Red Hat probably has near zero interest in helping any competitors rebuild packages, or compose the distro. But it's a stretch for folks to argue that ending one workflow in favor of another is slapping the faces of loyal free-loaders. The nexus of ideas/arguments from the one starting point to the wrong conclusion is just tenuous at best, so I'm not surprised some people would construct a straw man argument narrowly focused on short-term outcomes. Folks just need to get on-board with CentOS Stream, or setup some other way to rebuild EL packages. It's not that hard to reason about this topic.

To quote Jeff:

> Here's how it used to work:

> Red Hat would grab a copy of Linux They would add magic sauce that makes it Red Hat Enterprise Linux

> They would release a new version.

> They would update a source code repository with all the data required to build it from scratch

A few remarks. The "add magic sauce" part is gone, all the secret sauce, or black box machinery is out in the open in CentOS stream. Red Hat no longer does any RHEL development behind the corporate firewall, and does everything out in the open in CentOS Stream. There is one caveat for security CVEs, but effectively those go into CentOS Stream and RHEL at the same time when the CVE embargo expires.

What this comes down to is wilfully ignoring CentOS stream. All the clones of RHEL can simply track CentOS stream, and even replicate all the "Secret Sauce" that is the CentOS Stream CI/CD workflow. The process of replicating RHEL is so much easier today than ever before.

Correct.

To add to this, Red Hat does offers a free developer tier subscription, which allows individuals to download Enterprise Linux free of costs, but with strings attached. One of those strings, somewhere in the fine print is legal language about the restrictions of redistributing the software at the free tier. I'm not clear on the exact details, so I won't elaborate & please don't quote me, but it's my understanding that it's somehow a violation of terms redistribute. I'm not sure how that works with the GPL, and I'm guessing the bits ARE still shareable under the GPL, but the separate contract with Red Hat makes that a breach of contract. The mind boggles.

> I also think the lack of static types makes writing complex systems massively harder, but that's not a criticism of Perl in particular.

I get what you're saying, but also that's kind of BS at the same time. If you're thinking Python type annotations are a great feature, then you're entitled to your opinion. Others might say static typing of a dynamic language is pointless, and yet type analysis does help find bugs in code... to which I would agree. And yet the cost of adding static type annotations, which are not very static, causes the cognitive load to increase, and increases line-noise in a very ironic way given how Python was originally parroted as a less obscure script.

To that last point, let's not forget about sigils in Perl, and how they sorta are a form of type indicator. There is not much ambiguity when the script uses a symbol out in front of any given type of variable ref. The topic of tokenizing variables/ constants, lists, arrays, hashes, or whatever... entities in a script is an academic topic, but it's not! Just look at GOlang for example, they made a huge mistake by exporting variables and things by using the First character of the object, upper or lowercase determines if that thing is exported. One does not need to go find the declaration of the object to see if there was an "Exported" key word annotated at the definition, as is the custom in Python. But the problem is now the language relies on latin language concepts of upper/lower case characters... which excludes many large spoken & written languages used around the world. Thing any Asian, or middle eastern typeset. Anyhoo, Python got that right... one could in theory write python in one's own native spoken language, and Perl can be written in Klingon if you want... any arbitrary spoken language. One of the reasons is because the sigil's are separate from the typeset, and can be changed. In this way, and many other ways, the pathological pragmatism of Perl is outstanding, and the lack of weird opinions is both a strength and weakness. One last bit about typing, performance, and correctness.... Perl is very fast. I'm always reading how in Python the `for` loop is preferable to the `while` loop because one is implemented in python itself, and the other is a very optimal C code implementation. Perl is optimised at every corner of the language, except modules, but also modules who choose... Python does that too for modules, like any math or data-science stuff.

On that last point, I want to throw a bone, and 100% agree most of the Perl libraries for modern practices are out dated, or non-existent, or security problems. A programming language is only as useful as it could be for any given college student to use for a 1st-year software-engineering program. So if the ecosystem is dead, the language is pretty much dead. That said, I know plenty of neck beards who still use IRC, and bang out Perl for quick prototyping... before moving to GO, C, or whatever...

> Eh? Python backward compatibility is excellent.

Sure, so long as one wilfully ignores the 2.x to 3.x transition, that took 10 years. To be clear, to presume Python starts at version 3.3 is slightly weird, but we get it... One good example here is when pip stopped working for old python-2.x.

> Most Python 3.3 scripts still run on 3.11.

I would agree python forward compatibility is pretty good, but not so sure about backwards compatibility.

When the walrus operator first appeared, there was a period of time where scripts began using the new feature, and the version of the python interpreter used in all the places that script needed to run. Same thing for type annotations. And there have been plenty of breaking module changes.

> Packaging is another story, but we're talking about scripting, not distributing software.

That's fair, but avoids a big aspect of the problem statement, of when Python updates.

He's already created several programming languages, and there is still time to create his ideal.