SpaceNugget

I want to clarify that no, Starlink _really_ does not "drastically reduce the risk" of remote outdoor activities. Looking it up, Starlink doesn't even provide it's gps location to connected devices. And regardless, actually rugged communication capable handheld gps units already exist and have for a while. And they don't require that you bring a whole satellite dish and some kind of battery pack with you on your wilderness expeditions. What's actually idiotic, and getting lots of people in serious trouble these days, is going out unprepared. Don't risk your life, or search and rescue workers lives because you think you'll use Claude or whatever to figure it out while you are out there.

Things can go very wrong very quickly. If you go do risky activities far from help you should be prepared and know what you are getting yourself into and how to get yourself back out of it ahead of time.

They said exercise doesn't help them with reducing the feeling of hunger. I don't know why they thought it would, because generally if you do a lot of exercise you get more hungry not less hungry, but regardless, you are responding to something that wasn't said.

If there is a large group of people who use a term like "anti-fascist" as a tag line it no longer is a literal representation of the words. Just like how you wouldn't say that a guy rolling coal in a lifted pickup with a confederate flag and an AR mounted in the window who calls himself a "freedom fighter" is literally fighting for freedom.

Otherwise you will just be talking past people who are interpreting it to mean something else. Which of course you are free to do if you don't think what you are trying to say has enough value to be worth avoiding the miscommunication.

The sentence structures they use are always the same. Plus, the use of "real" here is "real" awkward and LLMs use it like that all the time.

Why are you attributing this to me

Because you wrote:

If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?

in response to:

The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens.

Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy. Which is something the statement you are replying to clearly doesn't agree with. And rather than accept that there is a disagreement of the purpose of the council or the acceptability of industry lobbyists influencing law or what not, you just frame it as a moral evil (maliciousness) on the part of the other commenter. A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations.

Side note: if your comment implies something hard enough (intentionally or not) that multiple people are "windmill-tilting" against something that you think you aren't saying, it deserves some reflection on whether you may have miscommunicated your point.

You seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body.

The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission.

Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think your feature request had anything to do with when apple implemented call allow listing. It's been a thing forever and they were surly aware of it since the iPhone first came out

If I'm refuting that everyone in the world knows x, by showing a large population that doesn't know x. Saying that there is some other population that does know x makes no difference.

GP: all trucks are red. Me: no, here's some trucks that are blue. You: but look how many red trucks I see over there.

Everyone in the world knows teams like Real Madrid or Barcelona

I promise you that if you go canvas a random selection of North Americans you would be astonished at how many do not recognize "Barcelona" as anything but a city. Football is really not very popular there. Though in recent years it is slowly becoming a bit more watched.

Beverse they are benefitting from the financial situation of owning the ai companies that are getting pumped massive amounts of money, not from the debated usefulness of the output of the LLMs.

That quote doesn't have anything to do with parameter evaluation order. There is no order for function parameter evaluation.

And no, there is no exception for undefined behavior. There can't be, otherwise the behavior would be... defined. It's in the name. Again, what do you think the compiler emits when the undefined behavior causes the program to not compile altogether?

The print example has no defined order of accesses, function parameters can be evaluated in any order. But further, the entire problem with UB is that it supercedes the regular guarantees that you get (like with volatile) when it's encountered. Yes gcc and clang do the obvious thing that makes the most sense in this example, but what people are trying to tell you is that they could just not do that and they would still be complying with the standard. For example, you can imagine a more serious example of UB that causes the program to fail to compile completely, and then do you emit the correct number of in order reads of volatile variables? Obviously not.

I totally agree that modern c++ is pretty robust if you are both a well seasoned developer and only stick to a very blessed subset of it's features and avoid the historical baggage.

However, that's obviously not the point? Ignoring the idea that people can/should just "git gud" and write perfect code in a language with lots of old traps, you can't control how everyone else writes their code, even on your own team once it gets big enough. And there will always be junior devs stumbling into the bear traps of c/c++ (even if the rest of the codebase is all modern c++). So no matter how many great new features get added to C++, until (never) they start taking away the bad ones, the danger inherent to writing in that language doesn't go away.

Also, safe != non-UB. TFA isn't so much about memory safety anyway.

The .nl indicates the netherlands. Many people in the netherlands vent/joke about how the doctors here only ever tell you to take paracetamol and come back in two weeks if it's still a problem (recursive solution).

However the last time I went to my GP she scoffed at me taking the maximum and suggested I take literally double the maximum recommended dose 4-5 times a day which totaled I think 2.5x the daily maximum on the package. I am very much a "believer" in science and reasonable medical authority but this experience sowed the seeds of doubt, because from what I have always heard, that can actually kill you or cause permanent liver issues. I was also taking diclofenac simultaenously, and when I told her how many mg, she asked "where can you even buy such small doses, that's what I would give a small child" =/

I use a kitchen knife to prepare dinner, and yet I am still appalled when someone uses a knife to stab someone. This is not hypocritical.

The article is partly about a _misuse_ of AI, and partly about just how bad the system around accounts and appeals is in general.

I don't really buy it. The idea that somehow getting one less core but faster per core speeds per pricing bracket makes any difference in this imagined problem.

There are many different configurations of vps available with different numbers of cores, if you are picking the vps configuration specifically to have more cores than some transcoding software uses by default to avoid configuring a thread limit for that software then you are still configuring things to the nth degree just at the objectively wrong level of abstraction.

Do you think the wilds two hours north of NYC are more or less difficult for laying fibre lines than between homes literally in the alps? 60% of switzerland is alps. Not exactly a cake walk for infrastructure development.

And why would they need open pit excavation for FTTH in NYC? Are there not existing trenches and under-street ducting for cables already in most of the city? Surely there are going to be some tricky areas but how to the other utilities like phones and electric work on their cabling?

If anyone on my team browses HN they will now know who I am :D

I moved to a new house in the Netherlands at the end of last summer. KPN the FTTH provider was there by chance the day I got the keys to put the fibre in the cable box by my front door, however there was something wrong on the other end and the fibre was dark. The fibre lines themselves are owned by a different company and KPN couldn't issue a work order on my behalf to the fibre managment company since I didn't have an active KPN subscription. The way you get an active subscription is for the tech to connect his diagnostic machine (or a self installing modem/ont) to validate the connection works. Catch 22, can't fix the fibre without an active subscription, can't activate the subscription without a working fibre.

In one of the ten or so phone calls trying to come to a sensible resolution, one of the support people suggested the only way to resolve this was for someone with an active KPN subscription moves to my street so they can issue the work order on their account instead (yea let me get right on that KPN) or to simply get a different ISP that is willing to issue the work order and then switch back to KPN.

I told them to forget my number and went with a hyper local ISP that literally has a cat 6 cable running under the cobblestones from my neighbours house. Unfortunately it's not a very stable connection and the 1gb is more like 30-300mb depending on presumably the bandwidth usage of the neighbours.

I think at the current level of LLM code I have observed there's basically zero chance they can produce a competitive cad/cas. Maybe they could approximate an open source kernel like opencascade but I don't see the point in that when freecad already exists.

How? If each core is 5x faster then it's done 5x sooner. I can't think of a use case for a cheap vps where 5x faster per core cpus are not helpful.

Sorry an advantage over what? What desktop operating system in common use _hasn't_ had decades of development of pet projects on obvious problems like system cleanup? Literally every operating system has these kinds of things

If by "conciously using it" means picking it over the alternatives and not using it while unconcious, then yes presumably that subset of people prefer it over the alternatives. That's pretty circular reasoning. Most people who actively choose to use linux also think that linux is a good os.

And I think most linux users would pretty strongly disagree that it's easier to fix windows, a user hostile, closed source operating system with far fewer options for every single user facing aspect of the OS than linux. You have that completely backwards.

I mean yea, I assume that's the persona it was going for. It was an account just made to post this called canadian000, I would have called it out as a broke uni student being paid to astroturf ten years ago but I assumed that market has been fully cornered by bots by now. Maybe it's just a really dedicated politically-willed crazy but either way it contributes nothing to these discussions and should be banned. It's bad flame bait and ruins the quality of the site.

This is obviously a bot comment. Is there really no room for automoderation of new accounts on HN?

They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.

Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.

It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.

All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.

No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.

I'm confused how you could be confused. Obviously the company that's passing off their costs to the consumer?

There is no os inside the container. That's a big part of the reason containerization is so popular as a replacement for heavier alternatives like full virtualization. I get that it's a bit confusing with base image names like "ubuntu" and "fedora", but that doesn't mean that there is a nested copy of ubuntu/fedora running for every container.

So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.

It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.

Going from the Netherlands to Budapest I started my journey with Deutsche Bahn. My train also did the split in half and go different directions trick. Was I supposed to learn Dutch, German, and Hungarian in order to buy my train tickets?

As a quick and kind of oversimplified example of what zero copy means, imagine you read the following json string from a file/the network/whatever:

    json = '{"user":"nugget"}' // from somewhere

    let user = allocate_string(6 characters)
    for i in range(0, 6)
      user[i] = json["user"][i]
    // user is now the string "nugget"

    {"user":"nugget"}
             ^     ]end

So if you use user after calling free(json), You have written a classic _memory safety_ bug called a "use after free" or UAF. Search around a bit for the insane number of use after free bugs there have been in popular software and the havoc they have wreaked.

In rust, when you create a variable referencing the memory of another (user pointing into json) it keeps track of that (as a "borrow", so that's what the borrow checker does if you have read about that) and won't compile if json is freed while you still have access to user. That's the main memory safety issue involved with zero-copy deserialization techniques.