Timwi

I'm in my 40s and I also prefer to call people on Discord, Telegram, Signal or (if no other option available) WhatsApp. The phone dialer is just inconvenient, while the above-mentioned chat apps have all the contacts listed and easy to access. There's also a slight worry about being charged for every phone call and every SMS and having to worry about your phone plan and texting plan separately from your data plan; maybe that's not a thing anymore but it used to be really worrying, so it gives me more peace of mind to only have to worry about the data plan and nothing else.

I tried on both phone and desktop and couldn't find that alleged setting either.

Apparently not compatible with Android.

Strange thing to be publicly proud of.

Whilst I agree that addictive things can be bad how far does this ago?

We don't need to get bogged down in this question before doing the first obvious thing and banning the most addictive things known to exist.

I was on LiveJournal a long time ago and I distinctly remember seeing Facebook, when I first tried it after everyone couldn't stop talking about it, as an unviable alternative precisely because it didn't show exactly what you subscribed to without filtering or manipulation. So either the algorithmic timeline was always there, or it was introduced early on before Facebook got big.

I think it should be illegal period. Advertisement is deliberate manipulation by exploiting known psychological vulnerabilities in humans. It's a despicable thing to want to do intentionally. It should be a criminal offense.

That sounds sadistic, to be honest. I think it's more fun when I know I'm not being unethical.

That's right, you're all alone in this private chat room.

When I compare what I’ve seen in my life so far, I don’t think anything comes close (for better and worse) to even one of those things.

I dunno, I personally consider the internetification of the world to be on a level with the developments you've listed. We've transitioned a lot of things away from the real world into cyberspace: banking, shopping, postal communication... and now even recent technologies such as radio and TV are being replaced by it. I don't know how old you are, but I've lived through that and it has been quite a ride — for better and worse, as you say.

Nevertheless, I agree that little has changed since. Maybe this puts you at < 20 years of age? I don't want to be presumptuous.

Your whole argument for not taking someone seriously is that they use a specific word 15 times? That's your standard for insanity?

Not sure how to feel about your implication that unmarried people are neither grown up nor adults.

Did anyone notice how the article goes on and on about making AI accessible to the billions of people in the world, but then in the same article says this:

Your agents need to be sovereign. Your company must own and control the agents’ identities, permissions, memory, skills, artifacts, and audit trails. Those assets must be portable, governable, and inaccessible to anyone you have not authorized.

That's not very open, now is it? In fact it sounds like the author assumes that all 8 billion people in the world will all be running their own company, and they will all still be competing in a game of capitalism.

How do you think humans experience desktop interfaces? “Basically just OCR'ing screenshots” is exactly what humans do.

Is that specified or does it always just assume it isn’t really being put in charge of things for real?

I think it's neither, and it's interesting that those are the only two possibilities you thought of. I think the article is implying that it figured it out on its own.

The button to place an order should 100% be idempotent. There's one order you're constructing in your shopping cart, perhaps with an internal ID, and the irreversible “commit” button should place that order, not create two separate orders.

It seems somewhat clear to me. You want it executed twice if and only if the operation isn't idempotent. Can you give an example where you think both behaviors are equally defensible?

It shouldn't buffer them like the author describes. It should execute the button’s function immediately when pressed. This might mean to cancel the current animation and jump ahead, or it might mean to speed it up by the appropriate factor so it takes the same amount of time as it does for one button press. Either way is massively preferable to a button that swallows my input.

Have you tried asking your son if the slippers and/or the coat might be uncomfortable to him in some way? You seem to assume that he randomly throws tantrums just to annoy you, but maybe he has a reason.

How does this affect the Fairphone? If I buy a Fairphone now (which I've been considering for months now) will I continue to be able to run F-Droid and load arbitrary apps, or does it come with “official” Android that will contain the restrictions?

Technically anonymous I suppose because the struct is not named, but the article is mostly about type inference while your example has every type made explicit.

If a statically typed language has no support for record type (or the support it does have is insufficient for your purposes) then you are forced to find other ways to express your logic, so over time those other ways start feeling more natural due to familiarity, and then you end up feeling that you don't need record types (or more extensive support for them), which in turn leads language designers/implementors to leave it out, and so the cycle repeats.

I'm not sure I agree that anonymous records are “obviously useful” when working with JSON. JSON is not typed, so if you want your deserialized JSON to be statically typed, you need to declare typed records outside of the JSON, so I'd say it's far more useful to use type declarations that are not anonymous.

That said, anonymous types are incredibly useful in general. I work with C# a lot and its support for them is rather shallow. In particular, there is no “with” expression equivalent.

This is the one area where you actually want an LLM to be “nothing but a fancy auto-complete” like so many people say it is.

I'm not surprised the Ruhr area (the cluster of cities in West Germany surrounding Essen) sweeps the “30% greenery” benchmarks.

This area was especially rich in coal deposits, leading to massive coal extraction during the industrial revolution. There was air pollution and industrial waste everywhere. The area quickly gained a reputation as the dirtiest, most polluted place on the planet. The colloquial term “Ruhrpott” (Ruhr cauldron) came out of this.

So in the 2000s, the city governments (Essen, Bochum, Duisburg, Dortmund, etc etc) decided on an ambitious project to counteract this perception. This paid off. Essen made the top three “Europe’s greenest city” three years in a row and won in the third (2015–2017).

Sometimes, a history of being known as the worst in something leads to greater enthusiasm to become the best.

Just as a heads-up, if you do this and you want to use #rrggbb color codes or url(#id) links, you have to escape the # as %23, otherwise it gets parsed as a URL fragment and your SVG code is cut off there.

What non-contrived polynomial time problem can you think of that is n^20? I'm really curious.

It is in the context of this thread, because the article is about exponential growth.

You're fond of asking candidates an unrealistic hypothetical and you think that's revealing?

The one that is labeled as “German” is similar to, but noticeably different from, the hardware display actually in use on Berlin underground trains. The real one has proper descenders, and also has narrow i/t/l and wider m/w (that is, it's not monospace). Alas, the provided link 404s as well.

There are a few mistakes in this talk; I'll list just two that I noticed.

1. He calls Array(16) and then talks about there being 16 separators. Of course, there are only 15. This kinda breaks the Batman joke.

2. He writes {}+[] and claims that he's adding a list to an object, then mocks the fact that it gives a different result than []+{} which gives [object Object]. In reality, if you write ({}+[]), you also get [object Object]. I'll leave it as a puzzle for you to figure out why {}+[] is different. (Hint: Gurer vf ab bowrpg gurer.)