troupe

The ink is extremely cheap compared to what you pay for ink in a print cartridge on a traditional inkjet printer.

If you turn it off and back on again, it will clean the print heads. Might not be a bad idea to do that every week or so.

> they have horrible ideas that they think are profound

I'm not so sure this is a horrible idea from the standpoint of their business. Other businesses could operate differently and if people preferred that, they wouldn't buy HP. Case in point, I haven't heard anyone recommend an HP printer recently.

I have had a pretty good experience with Epson Eco Tanks. They cost more than an inkjet, but the ink seems a lot more reasonable...even when buying it from Epson.

Two books that did for me what I think you are looking for:

- From Mathematics to Generic Programming by Stepanov & Rose

- Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Hofstadter

- The Little Schemer / The Seasoned Schemer

Funny that most of the stuff mentioned is low enough that it doesn't even meet my deductible. I'm not paying for insurance to cover a $250 bill, or even a $2,500 bill. I'm paying for insurance to cover an unexpected $250,000 bill.

So you think the classes are much easier? Might it be related to your life experience and focus you have now? Or are there things that simply aren't are rigorous as it used to be?

I've read these as a kid and they were some of the books I made sure I had in our house to read to my children. It seems like these would make a great TV series.

Brinley also wrote a book about creating model rockets that I read as a kid. I didn't realize he was the author of the Mad Scientist Club books until I was an adult. https://archive.org/details/RocketManualForAmateursByCapt.Be...

> what marketing value

Most people who are doing this type of things offer consulting services to help make sure your site / app are secure.

> The best approach is not to do it.

Don't do what? Don't tell them there is a security problem?

> Demanding money from someone that didn't hire you is never ethical - just childish.

Lets say my front door is open. Someone takes a picture of it and sends it to me so I can close and lock it. Once it is closed, they explain that they offer a service where they will help homeowners make sure that they keep their doors closed. They plan to use the picture they took to illustrate how they help identify open doors to show why people might want to be their client. However, if I want to pay them for the service the provided, then I get to decide if and how any information about my door being open is used.

> 42.7% of internet users worldwide use ad blockers.

Given how many people I know that still type google into the google search bar, I find this number to be extraordinarily high.

> I'm curious, does the LGPL state explicitly that the licensor guarantees that the licensee can excercise their granted rights in practice?

It feels like such a requirement would mean you would have to test each potential user for technical skills to determine if they are capable of doing the things that you are giving them the right to do.

In what way do you feel unemployment isn't sufficient? It seems to be high enough that people are able to provide for necessities while being low enough to keep them looking for another job...even if it isn't quite as much as they were making before. That seems like it is about the ideal balance.

I'm curious if the best monetary approach for a white hat hacker would be to show them the problem, give them time to fix it, and then give them an option to pay a consulting fee for the discovery in exchange for NOT publishing the exploit (after it has been fixed). The idea being the showing what you have found on other sites has marketing value for a white hat hacker, but had the company hired you to discover the flaw, you wouldn't be publishing it.

What if he says that he has discovered that if he stands on one foot in the street in front of your house, holds anyone's garage door opener above his head, and clicks it 25 times at precisely 9:01am while shining a laser pointer at the top of the door, your garage door will open.

The potential downside of stopping once you find a critical defect is that the company may not take it seriously unless you go just a bit further and show what you can do with the defect. In this case, showing that it gives you access to the admin dashboard.

I've played it a bit with my kids. It seems to be a game version of the Nand 2 Tetris course: https://www.nand2tetris.org/

> Cheating maximizes the benefit to that individual. But possibly damages the collective.

It would seem like a species that has a language would greatly benefit from having individuals with more years of experience on how to handle infrequent events like droughts, floods, abnormal animal migrations, etc.

I'm not seeing how longevity slows the number of generations you can have per unit of time. That seems like it would be determined by how quickly a species reproduces after being born...not how long they live.

I was part of that remediation effort in the healthcare sector. And yes there were things that were fixed that prevented problems. However, given how many things were not fixed, it is amazing how few problems actually happened. (Someone got charged for 100 years of late library fees...)

Is that because we found and patched all the systems that would have actually had a problem? Maybe. I'm guessing it is because many of the things that were fixed, wouldn't have actually caused any signifiant problem--at least not at the scale that was being predicted.

But as you point out, if there were any systems that would have failed in a catastrophic way, those were evidently fixed.

> The author would also conclude: > The prediction that Y2K would happen was a bad one since it didn't happen. (We spent billions of dollars to make sure it didn't.)

I would argue that we don't really know what would have happened had the world not spent all the money on upgrading systems. It appears a very large number of them would have continued to work as expected and it isn't immediately clear if the ones that were replaced would have resulted in a catastrophe.

If you are asking yourself, "will this do what it says it will do?" and you are comparing a project that hasn't had any updates in the last 3 years vs one that has seen a constant stream of updates over the last 3 years, which one do you think has a greater probability of doing what it needs to do?

Now I do get your point. There is probably a better metric to use. Like for example, how many people are adding this library to their project and not removing it. But if you don't have that, the number of recent updates to a project that has been around for a long time is probably going to steer you in the right direction more often than not.

> I disagree with Dijkstra that it will do any permanent damage

Dijkstra's quote about people who learned programming with BASIC being beyond repair is obviously hyperbole, but given the number of programmers he taught, I'd assume he was seeing some significant difference that was important enough to prompt his statement.

From a corporate standpoint, the big fear is that the LLM might do something that cause a big enough problem to cause the corporation to be sued. For LLMs to be really useful, they need to be able to do something...like maybe interact with the web.

Let's say you ask an LLM to apply to scholarships on your behalf and it does so, but also creates a ponzi scheme to help you pay for college. There isn't really a good way for the company who created the LLM to know that it won't ever try to do something like that. You can limit what it can do, but that also means it isn't useful for most of the things that would really be useful.

So eventually a corporation creates an LLM that is used to do something really bad. In the past, if you use your internet connection, email, MS Word, or whatever to do evil, the fault lies with you. No one sues Microsoft because a bomber wrote their todo list in Word. But with the LLM it starts blurring the lines between just being a tool that was used for evil and having a tool that is capable of evil to achieve a goal even if it wasn't explicitly asked to do something evil.

SICP is a textbook. The Little Schemer is a tutorial. You sit down with a pen, paper, and the book. Then you cover the answer column in the book, read the question / prompt and try to write an answer on your paper. You compare your results with the books suggested answer and work your way through it question by question.

So it is kind of a way of create a Socratic dialog with a book. I found it to be a great way to engage with the material in a way that promotes understanding in a hands on way, but without putting a computer in the way. When you are writing your answers you have to be more intentional than just, "well lets see if this works."

Some of the books I've read this year that I'd recommend:

The Divine Comedy by Dante - It is hard to underestimate how much it has influenced our culture.

A Distant Mirror - The history of the 14th century, but engaging like a novel.

Name of the Rose - Mystery novel set in Medieval times.

On Lisp by Paul Graham - http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html

Seasoned Schemer - Kind of an interactive book that teaches computer science concepts in an interactive paper based way. Probably best to start with the Little Schemer first.

> apple is the new Nokia.

You obviously haven't dropped an iphone on to concrete. :)

I think that part was done by the ghostwriter.

"at least in Detroit, they're looking to try it."

Is Detroit a place with a really tight housing market? It wasn't that long ago that neighbors were offering potential purchasers of near by houses dinner every week for a year to encourage them to go ahead and buy it because they didn't want more empty houses on their block.

"More profitable" would include the cost of getting the zoning changed.

The only reason it is profitable is because the cost of buying an existing home is often less than the cost of building additional housing. If you want to discourage people buying houses to rent them out, the best thing to do is make it easier to create more homes. Prices only stay high when the demand is higher than supply. Too often people want to try to control the market rather than dealing with the reason a particular way to participate in the market is profitable.

The underlying issue is that we need more homes.