MadameMinty

thinking hard does not burn significantly more calories

Up to 50 Cal extra over ~2 hours of intense thinking IS significant given brains consume 240-400 Cal over 24 hours.

Start thinking hard, and watch as your heart rate does not increase.

And yet you soon get tired and slow down. Now try the opposite. Stretch or punch the air a few times to get the heart rate going. You'll sustain brain performance for longer. Try it.

Perhaps the problem is that higher brain activity SHOULD trigger heart rate increase, but doesn't due to one of many design defects of the human body.

The source and documentation is the context. And it's not like we don't have to deal with undocumented, uncommented, ancient patchwork code from time to time. I'd rather solve the puzzle than harass another volunteer who has a life if I can avoid it.

Also feel free to consider the PR itself to be the question, just with said context presented in one go instead of a back and forth. Feels more respectful, too. In the end, if it's not getting merged because of some weird hacky edge case, then my code will still live on in my fork.

Why would I ask annoying questions when I can identify, reproduce, pinpoint the bug, locate it in code, and fix it? Doing it alone should make it clear I don't need to ask to understand it. And why would I be interested in small talk? Doubt many people are when they patch up their work tools. It's a dispassionate kind of kindness.

Not to mention LLMs can be annoying, too. Demand this, and you'll only be inviting bots to pester devs on IRC.

The datacenters are still going to be built, and their usage won't suddenly fall just because the companies behind some of the products on them suddenly lose value. The demand is not tied to their profits, so I find it unlikely for the shortage to just end.

Sounds textbook to me.

The registrar should ignore reports of abuse, especially if coming from an authoritative source with vast resources that's been collecting reports on its own?

No.

The source should be more careful. It's the equivalent of a renowned newspaper printing warning a restaurant being unsafe to visit. Should the customers' willingness to visit be magically decoupled from this opinion?

Next up, 2% cut whenever you use any banking or payment app. Only 1.5% when you use Apple Pay!

Funny because it would mean the guess is a hole in one when essentially blindfolded. Glad it looks like it!

I've noticed this also. But I didn't ascribe it to LLMs, rather figured there is some sort of rogue educator in India who's instructing students to do this on public repos and they just don't know better. But the prof should.

[1] Sounds difficult without any other detail.

But it would be funny if it's this: https://archive.org/details/teachyourselfweb00lema/page/n9/m...

Angry unicorns seem to be over.

Making strawmen. Your position of "policy is impossible to write" is inane.

This notion always puzzles me. It's not a complex idea.

Just like, say, banning GMO bananas. But such regulation is a whole text which may need to define or refer to definitions of "GMO" and "banana", specify what's banned, exemptions, enforcement authority, penalties, and so on. Maybe 10 pages of legalese. It requires time, expertise, research. But it's still just a ban on GMO bananas.

Or a programmed UI button to show a message. Simple. The specifics of the execution are a separate matter.

It's not "indescribable", but no one will describe it to you ad hoc and expecting it is silly.

It'd simply have to be carefully drafted policy rather than an internet comment.

Simple. Don't protect it just like sharing nuclear secrets or CSAM isn't protected.

I imagine the random person, if they were to accept, would likely find themselves out of depth and simply outsource most of the job to whoever convinces them they're the right choice.

The system would then morph into a variant of representative democracy. Instead of millions voting for, say, around a thousand of various level representatives, you get a random thousand "voting" for "consultants".

These consultants would be directly hired by the random thousand to do the work for them. They would predicably have marketing campaigns to make themselves seem the right pick. They might even offer their services for free. Demagoguery and corporate sponsorship as usual.

In the end 1000 people would hire, say, 1-1000 consultants to represent them. Thus emulating the original process, or worse. The only difference is the tiny electorate, which increases volatility.

If you'd like to regulate it to prevent this, you'd have to expend an effort and fight similar pressures as with doing it in any other system.

I see it. Overworked special effects artists, I suppose. It's funny how well some movie CGI from the 90s holds up in comparison.

Yes, but that doesn't potentially waste your opponents' time.

I'm extremely picky and Atkinson Hyperlegible was my favorite variable-width font. Never knew there's a "Next", so +

I remember a protocol which required the text to be replaced with random-length output of a Markov chain text generator, and only then pixelizing.

Oh, you've spent hours on unpixelizing my secrets? Well congratulations, is the last telescope that, nor drink from shrinking nothing out and this and shutting.

You should be blacking out information, to be sure, but credit card numbers are one of the very few examples where cracking makes sense, given that otherwise you don't know the pattern nor the font. Assuming it's text at all.

Please move on, then.

That reminds me when I got a server-grade Xeon E5472 (LGA771) and after some very minor tinkering (knife, sticker mod) fit it into a cheap consumer-grade LGA775 socket. Same microarchitecture, power delivery class, all that.

LGA2011-0 and LGA2011-1 are very unalike, from the memory controller to vast pin rearrangement.

So not only they call two different sockets almost the same per the post, but they also call essentially the same sockets differently to artificially segment the market.

The idea matches, but 2019 is a far cry from, say, 1930.