PurelyApplied

I do all* of that with my phone and a Bluetooth bone conduction headphones. It kinda seems like the glasses part only make sense if it's for loading it up with a camera. You know, for looking at things, with your glasses.

I agree it would be nice to have a non-skeezy offering, but I think that would be an entirely different product line.

[Edit: oh, well, I didn't realize some but not all of the meta glasses do actually have a tiny display built in. That would be the other use case, for the looking at things, through your glasses.]

* Okay, the sound quality is just alright, but if Meta wanted to pivot to headphones, I'm all ears, as it were.

Yeah. Like, you can do all this without LLMs. "Oh, I didn't copy this open source repo with a restrictive license, I just found an fork that was identical except for having removed the license. So we used that."

That's not how licenses work, and the license holder can absolutely tell you to get bent and/or pony up.

Oh hey, Photobucket! I wonder what I stashed in there...

Look through old email to figure out what email address they had.

Attempt to log in, no memory of password. Get reset link sent to my ancient Hotmail.

Hotmail doesn't recognize this device because I haven't logged in in a decade. Send an email to my hotmailspam@my-domain.com that I apparently set up at some point to confirm my identity. Have to enter multiple confirmation codes.

Log into Hotmail, click link to reset Photobucket password.

Create a new password, put it on my vault.

"Failed to reset password Firebase: Error (auth/the-service-is-currently-unavailable.)."

Perfect. No notes.

Certainly not fictional. You just haven't heard of the company that doubled every month for a year, which obviously they did because why wouldn't you?

If minor mistakes are corrected without the PR author's input, do they ever learn to stop making those mistakes themselves? It seems like a system where you just never bother to learn, e.g., style conventions, because reviewers just apply edits as needed.

I apprEciatE your dEdication to ExclusivEly using 'e' in quotEd rEfErEncE, but not in thE rEst of your clEarly human-authorEd tExt.

I rEgrEt that I havE not donE thE samE, but plEase accEpt bad formatting as a countErpoint.

The etymology of "manuscript" is from Latin "manu" by hand "script" (scriptus) written.

They made a drama comedy faux-documentary about it a few years ago titled _Pinball: The Man Who Saved The Game_. It's cute, regardless of your investment into pinball as a whole.

Oh, I fixed the link. It was easy enough to figure out. It never bodes well when an author fails to proof their summary line, though.

I feel like the header where you define key terms is a space where you really, really want to check for typos.

A major reason they don't make the news is that many aren't that critical.

My favorite recall was the letter I got last year for 23V048000.

The instructions for how to engage the defroster in my car manual were suboptimal. You actually _don't_ want it to be on full-blast.

Please report to your nearest Nissan dealer to get a piece of paper to put in your car manual.

It was turned down three days ago.

How did they got access to it? Concerning..

Someone bound system:anonymous to ClusterReader "just for now, for testing, I'll delete it right after".

Or quote-wrap `'rm'`.

Not the glib root-commenter, but the two big caveats is that Go is memory-safe provided you import neither `unsafe` nor `c`.

That can end up being a pretty restrictive constraint, if it's not something your dependencies cared about. If it is a concern of yours, it's pretty easy to check for at build time.

I don't know anything about markets or why things trend certain ways, but I am an avid pinball player. In fact, as I write this, I've traveled halfway across the country to attend the Chicago Pinball Expo with a buddy of mine.

I note that Full Tilt! released in what is often referred to as The Dark Ages of Pinball. There was a slump there in the 90s where every manufacturer of pinball tables folded, except for Stern, and they subsisted on making a pretty thin, bog standard sequence of tables. Pinball would resurge in the mid-to-late '00s.

I think the 90s was a moment where there was a group of people who enjoyed pinball, but it was hard to find venues that took care of tables. You certainly weren't getting very cool new tables every year. Full Tilt may have filled that gap.

Nowadays, you can just look up your area on pinballmap.com and find tables near you. That wasn't an option in the 90s. If you didn't know of an arcade with good tables, your only option was digital.

Stern releases a new, awesome, KME-designed table every year or two. Multiple other manufacturers have emerged to answer the increasing demand. A new company just announced a Labyrinth that I am so, so stoked to try.

Personally, I don't much care for digital pinball. The physical nature of the game is core to it. The simulated nudging doesn't do it for me. The consistent kickouts on many virtual pinball tables makes it a bit samey. I think they're great for learning and internalizing the rulesets of classic tables, and certainly there are things that a digital medium can do that the physical medium just can't. That's just my two cents.

I too remember when all my projects were greenfield, before my first burnout, when a less jaded me with better knees enjoyed the simpler times.

There are so many things to dislike about git, but I feel like so much of this post is reaching for cause to be offended.

Sha1 is a hashing function. As a hashing function, it's fine. Why does your identifier need to be cryptographically secure?

I agree with the name and email issues, but laughed at the ideal that a URL is somehow more robust.

Who claims that git is a database?

I agree with the broad strokes, especially having as many conversations as I've had with frustrated people about why their repo is in an unhappy state.

There should be a `curl | sh` in this, a security-oriented product? To demonstrate how badly you need it, perhaps?

Please don't pipe the Internet directly into your command line.

The Industrial Revolution shaped humans and culture to move to cities, work in factories/offices instead of home/fields and to think in more abstract terms (math, written words, etc).

Surely you aren't suggesting that mathematics, language, philosophy, or abstract thought in general is only 300 years old. Surely not.

This just in: flawed model discovers flaws in model!

> it is recommended not to ... compare values based on different models i.e. R0 numbers are worthless. You can't compare these values between pathogens

That conclusion doesn't follow from the predicate. The model isn't a single simulation run. To mathematicians, the model is the entire framework. It's the SIR model, or the SIS model, or the SIER model, or my favorite model of immunity decay against pertussis... _those_ are the models. The virulence of the infection being modeled, resilience of the population, morbidity and mortality rates, rate and timing of population quarantine, vaccine adoption rate, vaccine efficacy, whether any of the aforementioned values are themselves functions of time... those are just parameters into your model. We absolutely compare the values between pathogens _within the same model_ when discussing the utility of the model.

But typically, the utility in reproduction ratio is as a point of comparison as you tune other parameters. This is part of why a comparison of reproduction ratio across models isn't recommended. It's not just that it's hard to draw meaning from the comparison, it's that the base assumptions of the models might be too different for the comparison to hold any meaning. The reproductive ratio between a continuous model with uniform population mixing is fundamentally different from the reproductive ratio approximated from discrete simulation. They may both broadly speak to "if everyone they saw was susceptible, how many people do you expect to get sick per sick person?" But what that ratio means is dictated by the context of the model.

A frequent utility in comparing ratios is to discuss intervention impact. One might write "Our model found that overall reproduction was reduced to a factor of 0.XYZ (comprehensive infectivity parameters a=nnn b=mmm c=ppp) when the population undertook vaccination schedule foo. Conversely, reproduction was reduced to a factor of 0.JKL for the same infection under vaccination schedule bar. See Figure 14 for complete population state levels over time."

That's all that is. It's a number that has some meaning in context, and one that is often removed from that context and unreasonably expected to retain its meaning. Averages don't mean as much if you don't know if your distribution is multimodal. It's the same thing - a summary stat that can give you a glimpse of the whole, but still just a summary stat.

Oh, duh. I shouldn't try to read code past midnight...

Thank you!

Do you typically need to check both `Done` and `ok`? The latter is only false when the channel is empty and closed, so unless multiple routines are pulling from that channel, you should only need one, should you not?