silasdavis

How slow can a light aircraft go if pulling up heavily into a stall? Are they only going a few kmh when snagged like that?

What dreadful marketing drivel on their site.

It would be nice to see a technical overview, but this is absent from their docs. Looking at their modules reference docs the runtime seems to comprise:

- A distributed replicated log - Peer discover via a distributed hash table - UDP holepunching to set up direct connections - A TCP like protocol running over the UDP connection - Key-based crypto routing (ala wireguard)

I assume there needs to be some servers available to facilitate the holepunching. Not sure how that works.

https://pears.gitbook.io/pears-docs/

For me an essential aspect of a yak shave is that I don't usually know that I was in one until after I've exited.

An incomprehensible mess

And that manages to be the most intelligible part of prog.c

I've definitely played against some children who would respawn pieces. Human level AI clearly.

> Not using encryption properly?

They didn't mean that, they meant siphoning off data client side, for reasons, like CSAM.

The point, which I agree with, is having to trust a single closed source implementation of a client is not so different to trusting the servers of a non E2E service.

Only the good die young

It doesn't feel to me like much of a gain over having said team expose a specific default self registration function. Then that act can be explicit rather than action at a distance on some dependency defined global state.

I think this pattern in the standard library is a mistake.

I'm inclined to suggest the typescript could make compile errors of ambiguous routes, though I don't see any obvious reasons way without an explicitly referenced agreggate type for existing routes. So perhaps not if routes are initialised implicitly like this.

Template type strings with inference would also allow you to parse the strings in the type system.

I cannot imagine wanting to build my routes table implicitly through import graph rather than having a specific place to aggregate.

Yes I will never forget or forgive being forced submit my details to some Marriot bonvoy spam club in order to qualify for free WiFi in an expensive US hotel where I was staying for a conference. It was otherwise a manual daily payment via a broken portal of fifteen dollars. The cost of roaming mobile data in the US (from the UK, at the time) was completely absurd so they had me over a barrel for the hour or so connectivity I needed from the hotel per day to check in with work.

They wouldn't/couldn't just add it to my room invoice either so I would have had to manually pay on a personal card, and expense each day. From memory the portal did not accept my card on the first try either.

I'll take my boycott of them for this slight to my grave.

Are mid-range businessy hotels really working with such slim margins that its worth alienating customers like this?

When it's having a particular bad day I can sometimes rename a file-local unexported symbol faster than it can (pointlessly) search the entire repository for the name. Or when it's on an indexing holiday I can navigate by memory to a file I want with mouse-and-tree faster than it can. This make me sad and feels more common than it used to.

I can identify with much of this.

After an unfortunate bout of Java development, I was flung into the arms of Intellij, steadily won over by the indexing and the reliability of the refactoring tools. The Vim plugin was good enough and defining some chords for editor shortcuts resulted in a kind of fucked up fat vim emacs mode that was quite productive.

I, too, got fed up of spending inordinate amounts of debugging vimscript and incompatibilities to end up with something that was slower or buggier than an IDE in certain crucial ways or with highly debugging resistant niggles.

But I'm also far from in love with Intellij these days. It's slow. Prone to index corruption with lots annoyances I can't easily fix myself. I may churn to vscode. But I'm definitely in the gravity well of Intellij.

However perhaps this is worth a look. I have historically had a fairly high tolerance to plowing hours I'm never getting back into fiddling with tools. Just less than I used to. More nixos gnome, alacritty than gentoo, xmonad, urxvt...

Crit bit tries are also, therefore, sorted. They can be iterated in order.

See also https://dotat.at/prog/qp/README.html

Perfect on a first date.

I've not pushed the concurrency at all but I think it creates a lock file in storage which gives basic concurrency management.

The self hosted backend does have plenty of wringles though like not supporting the same stack name across different projects with the same backend URL contrary to how the hosted backend works.

Nonetheless it has been perfectly usable for us without paying for their hosting.

I guess you have to get over the name...

I think there's a few missing pieces of information (in this discussion, probably could be looked up by some intrepid soul)

Firstly what is the payout rate against, I could imagine it being:

- Plays - Time - Stake

Secondly, how is compliance defined:

- Convergence in expected value - Degree of breach of threshold

On the second one, it's kind of interesting if the degree of breach is 'never breach threshold', because when a machine is 'first turned on' the first play must always be a win (crudely speaking), if the second play has a sufficiently large stake (such that a loss would break the payout rate threshold) then that probably has to be a win too, etc until people can't keep exponentially raising the stages... This is a boot-strapping problem really but still.

If compliance is in expected value then I think any of the rates can be made to work

For a rate in terms of plays or stake then you can just have a binomial variable with some probability. In this case each player/play would be exposed to the same probability; each play would be independent.

For a rate in terms of time the plays would not be independent because the duration of previous plays and payout would affect what payout with subsequent plays would be, so you would need a dynamic adjustment of odds over the time domain, but this can still converge.

For a threshold like you describe then at such a point you would breach the threshold you may need to payout in a situation where you would have not paid out when converging in expectation.

I think what you are saying is that this shunting of probabilities would make the process not random.

However, I think the probability that a 'shunt' occurs could itself be modelled as a random variable dependent on the play history. Assuming some random properties to the sequence of plays (which is a reasonable modelling assumption), this would still be random.

It wouldn't be 'fair' in the sense of giving each player the same probabilities or for plays to be independent, but it would still be random just a distribution weirder than a bernoulli one.

Also FWIW:

> I wouldn't expect the payout laws to be written in such a way that "eventually"

That is exactly how I'd expect them to be written, seems the most natural way to do things, with the same ultimate benefit.

A process with a particular expected value can still be random.

If you control both ends of the pipe you are free to use the methods and conventions and maybe benefit when something gets cached.

That you cannot rely on consistency is not a reason to have none at all.

Destructive actions can and are also hidden behind a GET. When such an endpoint gets called indiscriminately by the rest of the internet it usually becomes the faulty implementation's problem.

Presumably the same would be true for QUERY.

Perhaps local events, extra charge for being integrated into the prompt

I believe this was their point, see gp

They might as a concession for confidence and supply from the Liberal Democrats. Which might suit all involved since the lib dems could be blamed in such an event.

I think we're more or less there already:

https://youtu.be/6__jx4YSfNI

The crime of offence, to someone.

I have seen them reported as luggage straps

> which turned out to be luggage straps.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/09/labour-says-...

Easily cut or removed in either case.

For the record I do not think locking on should be criminalised in general in the first place, much less for it to be preemptively policed based the discretion of some copper.

Surely 100 yards would be more appropriate

There are certainly authoritarian wings of the two main parties.

Though I can't help thinking that a big part of the creep is driven more by spineless pandering to various public constituencies and short term perceived vote winning rather than a particularly thought through desire to crush dissent.

Never mind the effect is much the same.

Indeed they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on'. An newly created offence barely a week old.

They had cargo ties to hold their placards during transit. Of no practical use for locking on.

The metropolitan police has since says it 'regrets they were unable to join other protestors'.

Between this and the online safety bill there are some dreadful dacronian laws making it onto the statue books in the UK in recent months. Compounding other forms of monitoring and criminalising speech under hate and anti terror laws.

It definitely could happen here.

Omega is the lowest countable infinity. There's no parity within a countable infinite as you describe.

It's only even or odd with respect to other infinities which the cardinal numbers can count based on the presence of a bijection or not. It's a kind of relative parity.

Probably the gap between stock keyboards and SwiftKey has narrowed down over the last decade. The key differentiators are:

Mixed language model learning: ngram models learnt on phone span base language models so it's very good at Spanglish.

A probabilistic typing model is learnt on device to capture characteristic patterns of key presses/misses for your typing style.