escape_goat

I think that it was good that it stood out to be honest.

This should be upvoted. Thank you, I hadn't realized that OP was referring to the heading font or scrolled down to see what is yes, quite a remarkable ligature. It appears to be Lato delivered from <https://brick.freetls.fastly.net/fonts/lato/700.woff> The ligature appears due to discretionary ligatures being turned on.

     h1, h2, h3 {
     font-feature-settings: "kern" 1, "liga" 1, "pnum" 1, "tnum" 0, "onum" 1, "lnum" 0, "dlig" 1;
      font-variant-ligatures: discretionary-ligatures;
     }

I inspected for a ligature and any evidence of CSS kerning being turned on before commenting, but I didn't test it to see what the page looked like with it turned on, so I didn't have active knowledge of the possibility of a ligature. If I'd know, it would have been better to give wider scope to the possibility that somehow kerning was being activated by OP's browser. I should have known better than to make a remark about a font without absolutely scrupulous precision! I actually appreciate the comments and corrections.

Back here on the lay benches, I think the best starting point in the Wikipedia is probably the the article on inhomogenous cosmology, of which the Timescape Comsology proposed by David Wiltshire (listed as an author on this paper) in 2007 is a notable example; it is discussed in the article.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inhomogeneous_cosmology>

It's not joining it in a kerning sense, that's just the remarkably serif nature of EB Garamond, which has a little teardrop terminal on the tip of the 'c'. It's possible that you have font smoothing that is tainting the gap, otherwise it's your eyes.

I asked ChatGPT-4 mini the previous comment's question (""Which is heavier, a 9.99-pound back of steel ingots or a 10.01 bag of fluffy cotton?") in new incognito tabs until I got an incorrect result. It only took four tries.

1: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton would be heavier. Even though cotton is much less dense than steel, the weight of the cotton bag is 10.01 pounds, while the steel ingot bag weighs 9.99 pounds, making the cotton bag the heavier of the two by 0.02 pounds."

2: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton is heavier. Even though the steel ingots are denser and more compact, the cotton weighs more at 10.01 pounds compared to the steel ingots' 9.99 pounds. The difference is only 0.02 pounds, but in terms of weight, the cotton bag is heavier."

3: "The 10.01-pound bag of fluffy cotton is heavier. Despite cotton being less dense than steel, the weight is determined by the total mass, not the material's density. So, since the cotton bag weighs 10.01 pounds and the steel ingot bag weighs 9.99 pounds, the cotton bag is heavier by 0.02 pounds."

4: "The 9.99-pound bag of steel ingots is heavier. It weighs 9.99 pounds, while the bag of fluffy cotton weighs 10.01 pounds. Despite the cotton being fluffier and taking up more space, the steel ingots are still lighter by 0.02 pounds."

I'm rejecting the idea that software distributed in any way that has an MIT license can be "de facto" closed source. I think that this is a conceptual misapplication of the term "de facto," which implies an argument of equivalence in a situation where that equivalence does not exist. The question is not whether or not we can access the source code; we can now access the source code. The question is what the license was. To say that the license was "de facto" closed source before the software was distributed without the repository controller's knowledge or intent is to make a legal argument about that license. That argument was false. It just just as false as the argument that an electrical fire in the wall of your house that you could not see occurred 'before' your house was on file.

I'm not confused, I'm pointing out that the license in a private source repository changes the legal rights of the person with respect to distribution of the software defined by the contents of the repository, and than therefore a private repository with open source code inside is not a de facto closed source repository.

This sounds like it is de-facto true but it isn't. A private file repository with a closed source license is in-facto different than a private file repository with an open source license. The license is not altered by the access permissions of the repository, and the access permissions of the file repository are not altered by the license. A compiled version of code in a private repository with a closed source license can be released publicly without that code. The same is not true if the private repository contains code with an open source license.

Well sure we can both make unsourced assertions all day but as far as I can see the flag state is responsible for illegal conduct of commercial vessels only insofar it has failed to meet its obligations for regulatory and legal oversight.

Just to clarify again, this is a dry bulk / Panamax vessel. It is part of the shipping industry. At scale, it is analogous to a railroad car. In 2015 it was operating as the Avra under the flag of Greece. The foreknowledge of the Chinese government that a Russian officer would conduct hybrid operations from the vessel cannot be inferred from the circumstance. It is like thinking that someone with an American passport is an American spy.

There was a degree of proof of work involved. Text took human effort to create, and this roughly constrained the quantity and quality of misinforming text to the number of humans with motive to expend sufficient effort to misinform. Now superficially indistinguishable text can be created by an investment in flops, which are fungible. This means that the constraint on the amount of misinforming text instead scales with whatever money is resourced to the task of generating misinforming text. If misinforming text can generate value for someone that can be translated back into money, the generation of misinforming text can be scaled to saturation and full extraction of that value.

I do not think it true that it goes "both ways." Patients do not have a collective responsibility to doctors. Patients should not go untreated because other patients lie about their addictions. Being a doctor means exactly watching dozens of horses go in and out the door each day and saying "that's a zebra" before the zebra makes it to the exit. There's a fundamental responsibility to perform differential rather than normative diagnosis.

Generally speaking, I defer to your expertise point of view in the matter, and I agree that it will be far easier to generate meaningless research that passes the test of appearing meaningful to reviewers than it will be to generate meaningful research that passes the test of appearing meaningful to reviewers.

However, it is an open secret that this is already true, is the thing. Meaningful peer review is already confined to islands within a system that has devolved into generating content. The automation of the process doesn't represent a tipping point, and I don't think that the ethically disclosed production of 'research' by large language models is going to represent a significant part of the problem. The errors of the current system will be reduced to absurdity by the existent ethical norms.

There's an interesting story inside this interesting story. In the counterfactual, the company continues to manufacture and sell the product as a cordless telephone for a few years before the rest of the vendors catch up with it in terms of quality. That's not what happened. Why not?

I think the question on everyone's mind is probably how to produce a signal from inside the hull of a single-hulled cargo vessel in the North Atlantic that will allow one to relay messages in morse code to the US Navy.

There was a shift in how the word 'hominid' was used around the 1990s, largely due to the introduction of genetic classification if I understand correctly. Hominids (humans and close ancestors) used to be considered distinct from Pongoids, which were basically all other great apes including chimpanzees and bonobos. That taxonomy was retired, and all great apes are now considered hominids.

I don't think that it would be wise for anyone to rely on such practices. Even with the best of intentions, obsolescence and unintentional misdirection are strong possibilities. Considering normative intentions, it is an invitation for "optimization" attempts by websites presenting contested information.

But maybe you guys are 1.25 developers. I mean if most people are staring at their screens and done for the week on Friday and you're still getting things done then in terms of ideals — because okay I know this needs hashing out in practice— I don't think anybody is going to resent you taking home a premium based on what you put in every week.

Honestly if knowledge workers are sort of dialing it in unhappily with minimal productivity after X hours and labor/service/on-call workers can keep plugging away for Y>X hours then there might be some win-win there in terms of quality of life and wage inflation.

To my circumstantial understanding, it is plausible that fragments of an interceptor detonated in proximity to the warhead could achieve supersonic velocities capable of delivering the requisite shock, but I lack the knowledge to argue the point.

The charges will not be like nitroglycerin, but they will be highly explosive and will detonate when sufficiently energized. Under the right circumstances the kinetic energy from a fragment of an interceptor would suffice.

Nice but I believe that parody goes against the spirit of the comments section.

I think that you deserved a bit of pushback on how you phrased that, but that nothing that you said beyond describing it as 'gatekeeping' was objectionable or even wrong, and that the rest of us should ease up, having seen that the job's been done.

I have no comment of actual value to contribute but I note that by the standards of the field we can infer the existence of the Schxorr algorithm.

When you ask someone a question, their answer isn't a rebuttal and you don't give them hints, come on. Really needlessly obnoxious. He replied to you in good faith.

Actually, you said something hyperbolic that was spectacularly false, which you seem to have no intention of acknowledging. If one has a defensible point, it's usually much better to go ahead and make that point in the first place. As it stands, you'll have to hope that someone else makes it to me on some other day, I guess, if it matters to you.

This also seems misleading with respect to Hitler's rise to power, which had far more to do with the weakness of Weimar Germany's institutions and the cynicism of the ruling classes than the SA or the SS, although I agree with your point about the political violence of the time in general.

You've made a very good point about the dangers of failing to learn from history, and I think that if you spent an hour or so researching how Hitler actually came to power in the Weimar Republic, you'd be able to appreciate it.

Under conditions of omniscience and omnipotence the difference is meaningless of course but I suspect you're right.