d4v3

Separate high-frequency operational state from large, flexible, searchable metadata. It is bad data models that don't scale

Interesting roasting process with high heat 2x for 1 minute. Quite different than say kilning pilsner malt at low heat for a much longer time. Sure speeds up production, I bet!

More like solvents at the hardware store

Can't you just tell your AI tool of choice to just port it? One thing I like about AI is that now I can easily roll my own or take an open-source project and customize it really fast with very little commitment on my end. Instead of everyone having to use the exact same tools, now we can customize it to our liking--at least for now

If your answer to broken voting is violence, then you were probably just looking for an excuse, not a solution

Unfortunately, political violence seems to be en-vogue these days. I even hear people in "real life" casually discussing their support for it. What can we do? I think the only thing we can do is push back on it, even though it doesn't seem fair. What's a favourable alternative? You do a great job here giving individual feedback, which I know some people listen to and take in. I hope it's some kind of comfort to know that you can change people's minds, or at least give them some pause. In today's algorithm-driven world, pushing back seems more important now than any time I can think of. We need cool, level-heads running things.

I mean, if they are using more AI and less of the devs who made it what it is... it might be better? A little tongue-in-cheek, but I find jira and confluence much less annoying now that I just made a claude skill for each of them and now I don't have to interact with their UI very often anymore

Wow, I wish I read this guide months ago when I was trying to research split keyboards. It would have been a lot easier to see what the options are. I eventually settled on the nocfree keyboard and have been relatively happy with it. It definitely helps by letting me split the keyboard very wide and open up the shoulders and back (slightly wider than shoulder distance). It feels like everything these days is trying to squish our shoulders/back into a hunched position. As someone with back issues, I have to mindful of my posture. Split keyboard + adjustable standing desk is great for the scapular area and the lower back for me

If I can get distracted from my real world tasks anytime, anywhere, the immediate incentives to work on real things disappear. Effectively, one can get stuck in a local minimum.

I don't know how to solve it, ...

but personally I've chosen to block as many feeds/algorithms as I can, ...

I think you solved it :) (at least, for yourself)

There are many things "out there" that are addictive and distracting and thus unhealthy, but we all have to find some way to overcome

Depends on your use case. White lithium is better for metal on metal and silicone works better for plastic and rubber applications

Sure, write some SQL from time to time, but the majority of the time just use the ORM

So add another layer that has to be maintained/debugged when you don't have to?

Actually, especially for smaller breweries, carbon filtration is extremely common. It still removes chloramines, pesticides, and other off-flavor compounds, and is much cheaper than an RO system. It's true that it won't change the hardness of the water, but if you have naturally soft water you can just add minerals, if needed for the style

Activated carbon will remove the larger chain PFAs, but is not as effective as removing the smaller ones. From the paper:

Conventional water treatment employed at municipal drinking water treatment plants have been shown to be nearly ineffective at removing PFAS. This can leave the burden and cost of implementing more sophisticated water treatments to brewers unless public water suppliers implement tertiary treatment to remove PFAS from finished water prior to distribution. Anion exchange and activated carbon treatments have been shown to more effectively remove longer-chain PFAS and PFSAs but were less effective in removing PFCAS and the alternative shorter-chain PFAS and PFECAs. Reverse osmosis treatment showed significant removal of PFAS of different chain lengths in drinking water, but can be prohibitive due to high operational costs and energy usage. In areas with known contamination, beers from macro- breweries were less likely to have detectable PFAS than craft beers brewed at a smaller scale, potentially due to more effective and expensive filtration of tap water at larger breweries.

Because then parents couldn't just shove a screen in front of their child's face and then proceed to ignore them anymore. Half-kidding, but there are real liability concerns. How much supervision is reasonable? My parents definitely didn't police my every moment on the internet. Actually, quite the opposite

Everyone knows that hackers exist and exploit security lapses. Everyone. You might not know the details and such, but you should responsible enough to at least ask if you are taking people's money. I just don't think the ignorance card is plausible here

They are already suppressing left-leaning speech by defunding CPB, and ahve openly said their reasons for doing so for are politically motivated

No longer subsidizing left leaning speech != suppressing left leaning speech

big brain dev say, "me add complexity. no problem."

grug whisper: “problem come later.”

grug see lone dev make clever code.

grug light torch for future archaeologist.

read this report:

"The White House Covid Censorship Machine"

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...

I choose to believe that a democratically elected government with proper functioning institutions can regulate speech properly instead.

Abuse of free speech has almost always been justified by those very "proper institutions" that you place so much faith in. I'd say you're being a wee bit optimistic about them. One embarrassing example that comes to mind was during the Troubles [1]

I see unshackled free speech as much more dangerous than that of a democracy being overzealous in speech, as the first can absolutely undermine democracy if enough imbeciles decide to believe in.... erm... "challenging" ideas (and I use those quotes very sarcastically).

A proper democracy being overzealous can be fixed by the democratic process.

You assume a “proper” democracy won’t go too far, and if it does, democracy will fix it. Yet, speech is what allows people to challenge, protest, and critique. So regulating that speech undermines the very tools needed for democratic correction. Also, free speech is often what prevents overstepping in the first place.

If it was cultural norm to engage in revenge killings, I would very much expect government to step in and stop that, not to take a wishy-washy stance "eh, it is a cultural problem" and handwave it away.

Indeed, so would I! But there is a difference between violent actions and bad ideas, and there can be laws for violent actions without needing to suppress discussion about them. We don’t need to outlaw speech in order to outlaw violence. Ultimately, I think robust free speech doesn’t undermine democracy but protects it, even if um "challenging ideas" (I'm smirking) are uncomfortable to hear

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%931994_British_broa...

Hard disagree, and I wonder how you can say that when we live during times when society in general is definitely is unable to handle "challenging ideas".

A century ago, mainstream society openly embraced racial hierarchies as scientific fact. Three centuries ago, slavery was not only legal, but morally justified by churches and universities. In 17th-century New England, people were executed for witchcraft based on superstition and mass hysteria. Well into the 20th century, eugenics was considered respectable science across Europe and North America. So I don't think these current times are any worse than they were before in terms of bad ideas existing in the mainstream, at least from a historical perspective. In fact, I'd probably argue it's better.

Also, far too many times past societies accepted vile ideas as valid information with terrible results.

This is true of any society. The key difference is that they are easier to challenge in a place with strong free speech protections. Bad ideas will always exist, but it's better to test them out in the open rather than let them fester in dark.

You are very optimistic that unshackled free speech will ensure that bad ideas are not given a free pass, ...

You're right, I am. I believe in a marketplace of ideas because it's better than any alternative that involves gatekeeping truth. The notion that "my ignorance is as valid as your knowledge" is a cultural problem, not a legal one. I trust free speech over any system that relies on a sanctioned arbiter of truth. And I think that protection of people from bad ideas often backfires (see European history and the Catholic Church, McCarthyism, Nazi propaganda, Soviet censorship, etc.)

Vile ideas are not automatically accepted as 'valid information'. You're assuming that society can't handle challenging ideas while ignoring the possibility that free speech is what allows for those ideas to be openly criticized, debated, and disproven. A robust system of free speech is what actually ensures bad ideas are not given a free pass but are subject to critique and debate

Once you open the door to criminalizing ideas, even vile ones, you risk that power being misused later in ways no one intended. Defending the principle of free speech isn’t the same as defending the content of the speech. It’s about protecting the framework that allows us to challenge bad ideas rather than bury them.

Musk seems to be censoring Twitter all over, support for Israel is boundless but speak up for Palestine and ICE detains you... If "absolute free speech" is curbed by whatever the government likes, then what's the point?

The existence of imperfections isn’t a reason to abandon the principle. Things take time to work thru the courts and such.

That's shortsighted. Today it's the holocaust. What is it tomorrow?

Exactly! I learn all kinds of things besides coding-related things, so I don't see how it's any different. ChatGPT 4o does an especially good job of walking thru the generated code to explain what it is doing. And, you can always ask for further clarification. If a coder is generating code but not learning anything, they are either doing something very mundane or they are being lazy and just copy/pasting without any thought--which is also a little dangerous, honestly.

I found myself thinking about something similar recently. It had to do with the Optifye.ai fiasco, and the difference between solving problems / creating things for the 'common man' vs. for the 'ruling class'. I think I much prefer the former.

You must not be learning very many new things then if you can't see a benefit to using an LLM. Sure, for the normal crud day-to-day type stuff, there is no need for an LLM. But when you are thrown into a new project, with new tools, new code, maybe a new language, new libraries, etc., then having an LLM is a huge benefit. In this situation, there is no way that you are going to be faster than an LLM.

Sure, it often spits out incomplete, non-ideal, or plain wrong answers, but that's where having SWE experience comes in to play to recognize it

You're right, I didn't mean to add so much emphasis on 'knowing'. I meant settled in the sense of 'settled science', or being as reasonably sure as we can--barring any flying spaghetti monsters. Far from being uninteresting to scientists, I'd argue that this question of whether quantum mechanics is truly probabilistic or hides deeper deterministic mechanisms is one of the most profound topics in physics

I think this is a trick question. I don't think it's even been settled that quantum mechanics are truly, for sure probabilistic. The universe's true underlying nature (deterministic or not) is still unknown. Additionally, classical mechanics inherently assumes states can be predicted if initial conditions are known.

I think more practical questions would be along "what classical situations are non-deterministic from a human perspective or in-practice?", which would lead to questions about what is calculable or not with the tools and knowledge we have now

> It seems like an LLM could easily perform this task

Bingo—of course we use an LLM. No human is sitting there churning out demand letters by candlelight. ...

Sorry, let me clarify what I meant: It seems like someone (like myself, at least) could use an LLM to do this without using this site. I do like how you have all the questions prepared for the letter generator, as well as state specific law information, but I personally wouldn't trust uploading my files and story to a random site. That's not to say I should trust ChatGPT, but it does seem a little less sketchy for whatever reason. Not to mention, I can edit the letter more easily because I'm already in a session with it. Anyway, I'm sure other people will find this really useful, so kudos!