heironimus

2. Yes! Allow continue for no score after timeout

We already have had that for millennia. Moles. Benign cysts. Unusual body shapes. Doctors have learned to say more than “just pretend that’s not there”. They have learned what’s important and what’s not and how to explain such things.

Why can’t learning more about unusual things we can’t see with the naked eye be the same?

“Bury your head in the sand to avoid harm” does not seem to be the right path.

Scans like this will have short term difficulties while we better figure out what’s important and what’s not but will only help long term.

That does not demo well at all.

I’ve seen dozens of these types of demos and it’s always live footage from a semi public place like this.

It’s much easier to just show live footage rather than rig up canned looping footage.

It’s pretty astonishing how no one watching the demo with me seems to care. No one asking “Hey, will you just be able to do this with our video if we buy from you?”

You don’t buy a $600 laptop to be useful in 5 years. And I’ll bet it will be more useful in 5 years than any 2031 $600 PC laptop.

If you had 32G RAM it would use that too. It uses all it can. 8GB is fine. And will be for years.

It was pure, unadulterated slop. I was bewildered. Had I not reviewed every line of code before admitting it? Where did all this...gunk..come from?

I chuckled at this. This describes pretty much every large piece of software I've ever worked on. You don't need an LLM to create a giant piece of slop. To avoid it takes tons of planning, refinement, and diligence whether it's LLM's or humans writing it.

Is there any metric saying what the proper amount is or is it always “more”? Is there a point where others should do more and the US less?

You could touch type on that horrible keyboard? I learned to type on typewriters at school, but never could very well on my C64 with its elevated, mushy keyboard.

Similar to me, but years earlier in the US. The best thing that happened to me at that time was not being able to afford a floppy drive. My friends who had one just played games. I had to learn to program instead.

This implies that Space X is overcharging compared to launches from 25 years ago, but is cheaper relative to ULA launches from 10 years ago.

But how does, for example, "1998: Deep Space 1 — Delta II rocket — $86 million" compare to "2025: SPHEREx astronomy mission — Falcon 9 rocket — $99 million"? Are they similar payloads? Are the reliability requirements the same? Could there be a reason the Falcon 9 launch costs more instead of less, as we would expect?

The article does mention interesting reasons why some cost more than others such as scheduling, hazardous payload, weight, non-combined payloads, etc., but without addressing each launch individually there is no way to address the headline, "Why is NASA paying more?"

Incidentally, from the data, I don't see any case of them paying significantly more. It's actually about the same, so even that is misleading.

So the takeaway I get is that these two databases should be cross linked so this doesn’t happen again. Maybe there’s a community of software developers who could help.

I was using ChatGPT to compare Docker and Podman and getting reasonable comparisons. I also asked it about c code searching tools and getting a reasonable list with what I think were reasonable comparisons.

It hit me that in a few years, this may not be available as Docker and other tool suppliers start paying for advertising. We’ll see.

This is the same technology story told thousands of times a day with nearly every technology. Medical seems to be especially bad at this.

Take a very promising technology that could be very useful. Jump on it early without even trying to get buy in and without fully understanding the people that will use it. Then push a poor version of it.

Now the nurses hate the tech, not the poor implementation of it. The techies then bypass the nurses because they are difficult, even though they could be their best resource for improvement.

Me: This does not look interesting at all, but its really popular, so I'll quickly skim it. Me, 5 mins later: I can't stop reading this!

Exactly. “This is bad because dumb people won’t believe us.”

Not “This is bad because it undermines science, is lying, and unethical, regardless of what people think.”

These saved me from a redesign 25 years ago. I had an 8051 with 256 bytes of RAM and a serial EEPROM with limited writes. Replacing the EEPROM with a serial FRAM allowed me to increase the effective RAM. I had to do some tweaking and figuring because it was so much slower. Also, FRAMs had limited writes AND reads, but on the order of billions instead of millions. Billions of reads are a lot, but you still had to be careful.

If I live within two miles of an airport, directly on the flight path, what are the odds of my house being damaged by a plane versus burning down by other causes, damaged by a falling tree, struck by lightning, etc. I don’t know, but am certain it’s negligible comparatively.

Problem is, if everyone has resistance backup and it gets really cold, I doubt if the grid could keep up.

Conservatively, the people in this conversation make $5 million per year total, the software (git) contributes billions, and we are discussing how to better allocate $230 per month. Open source economics is fascinating.

There are so many reasons the EpiPen costs $318, corporate greed being one of them. One of the huge reasons that no one talks about is that most rarely actually sell for $318. It's priced at that, but insurance companies negotiate a lower (unpublished) price in most/all insurance purchases. It's only those with no insurance or who are buying it without insurance that pay the full price.

This is true for nearly all drugs, medical equipment, or medical procedures in the US. This is one of the huge problems with our system. Everyone puts a huge price-tag on their stuff knowing that insurance with negotiate down.

To me, this seems like the biggest problem here.

It would easily be as popular as the Stocks app and the U2 album.

Not a comment on the API itself, but I like how Stackoverflow/Stackexchange has interactive documentation, allowing you to fill in prompts and have it create the request for you and show the live results.

https://api.stackexchange.com/docs

Actually, it's quite different. Pacemakers are vital to minute by minute survival. Insulin pumps are convenient for long-term survival. If an insulin pump quits working, it's inconvenient, but you notice it in a few hours after a blood test and compensate. If an insulin pump mistakenly gives too much insulin, you die within an hour.

If I could have afforded a floppy drive for my C64, I would have been a great Loderunner player rather than a coder.

Very well said. I greatly respect you for what you are doing/have been doing. It's obvious from your comments that you are not just talking nice, but have been there.

I'm pretty sure no one has responded because no one knows how to respond to your bleak ending. Probably because it exposes our selfishness. I know I don't know what to say.

Do you have any further info about the work you and your brother are doing/have done?

Just curious, but what are the "real reasons they are nonetheless made to put up with it"? If your child says "I'm being bullied at school and no one is doing anything about it. My teacher ridicules me because I don't understand Algebra. I'm not learning anything in literature class except how to fill out worksheets. Can't we figure out something better?" what do you say?

After reading comments implying that this is Bill's fault, here is how I'm guessing this played out. I could be wrong, but I've seen it before.

Bill says "Why isn't Ctrl+F mapped to forward?"

Developer hears "Bill wants this mapped to Ctrl+F. I'd better it do it or I'm fired."

Bill means "Please map this to forward, unless there is a really good reason otherwise, in which case I expect you not map it to forward, but tell me the reason why not."

I want to know this too. When I see thing like "This fixes the DMCA", it makes me question the intentions of the advocating website. It sounds too good to be true.

You haven't worked for an enterprise software firm, have you? ;-)