hetman

I think there's no denying they each have an ideological bent (as is their right as private companies). I have had Copilot deny me access to historical information on ethical grounds, even though I don't think anyone would find it controversial (clearly it was overtuned, GPT and Claude had no problem answering the same question). What is different though is that they are each allowed to have their own perspective instead of a singular mandated one.

Why would it be a problem that they're Chinese? It's a problem because their country is ruled by an authoritarian regime. The West, by contrast, doesn't have a singular arbiter of truth, it has a plurality of perspectives (as much as certain interest groups would really rather that was not the case). It's not perfect, but those of us who have memories of living under authoritarian regimes can tell you there's no comparison.

Except in this instance the conflict erupted after the population size was reduced due to disease so it's not entirely clear this was caused by the scarcity of resources. Nor is it clear what selective advantage mutually destructive wars would have assuming plenty of resources. The researchers posit group relational dynamics being the primary factor.

Almost. After battling with support for several months, a friend of mine recently learned that versions of Office without AI do not allow you to create Teams meetings that last longer than an hour. Makes me wonder what other features they're leaving out.

Indeed. As an anecdote, I've come across a self professed frontend UI guru writing quadratic code that worked fine in testing because it only had to display a few tens of items there, but at a complete loss why it was unusable in production.

But Palmerston's quote isn't about convenience. It is not at all clear to me that supporting Nazi Germany would've served the US's broader global interests. For example, fascism and capitalist free market ideologies are somewhat at odds with each other on multiple points.

In fairness, the US kept indirectly funding the Khmer Rouge even after evidence of their atrocities came to light for their own strategic geopolitical reasons.

The realpolitic of international relations very often follows the words of the British prime minister, Lord Palmerston: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

So has Linus straight up made it know this is where he would like things to head? Because it seems a lot of the resistance to Rust in the Linux kernel is coming from seasoned C developers who do not want to document these interfaces.

I agree with this sentiment. I find attempts to create these kinds of universal rules are often a result of the programmer doing a specific and consistently repeating type of data transformation/processing. In their context it often makes a lot of sense... but try and apply the rules to a different context and you might end up with a mess. It can also often result in a reactionary type of coding where we eliminate a bad coding pattern by taking such an extremely opposite position that the code becomes just as unreadable for totally different reasons.

This is not to say we shouldn't be having conversations about good practices, but it's really important to also understand and talk about the context that makes them good. Those who have read The Innovator's Solution would be familiar with a parallel concept. The author introduces the topic by suggesting that humanity achieved powered flight not by blindly replicating the wing of the bird (and we know how many such attempts failed because it tried to apply a good idea to the wrong context) but by understanding the underlying principle and how it manifests within a given context.

The recommendations in the article smell a bit of premature optimisation if applied universally, though I can think of context in which they can be excellent advice. In other contexts it can add a lot of redundancy and be error prone when refactoring, all for little gain.

Fundamentally, clear programming is often about abstracting code into "human brain sized" pieces. What I mean by that is that it's worth understanding how the brain is optimised, how it sees the world. For example, human short term memory can hold about 7±2 objects at once so write code that takes advantage of that, maintaining a balance without going to extremes. Holy wars, for example, about whether OO or functional style is always better often miss the point that everything can have its placed depending on the constraints.

The burden of proof generally lies with the one making the claim. As Hitchens's razor states: "what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."

Anyway, only because something feels intuitive, it doesn’t make it true. In this instance the original claim seems to contradict the article which states imaginary friends are not the result of loneliness but the process by which children explore the complexities of real relationships… i.e. a form of subconscious thought experiment.

According to the Kremlin, this means Russia dictating security policy to a population double its own. You may choose to believe that you can count on one hand the number of countries in the world with genuine sovereignty, but I assure you the citizens of the other countries will beg to differ.

Also it's not clear what "Even Donald Trump now admits..."is intended to mean here. Donald Trump has always repeated Kremlin talking points so I'm not sure why anyone would think of this as novel.

Which proves that talking about millionaires is no longer that socially relevant thanks to inflation. Somehow ten-millionaire doesn't have quite that ring though.

Alright, settle down. The only sources I saw laying into him over it were the ones that make this kind of critique their life mission (professional or otherwise). As for the broad population, in as much as I could tell, it seemed they were upset about pretty much everything but the shirt, which is what I'm more interested in for the purposes of this discussion. Certainly, every person I spoke to about it hadn't even noticed it until it was pointed out, and the trend online didn't strike me as particularly different. I guess we'll have to disagree in that we got a different read of the situation.

Pretty much everything else you said confirms just how ingrained the attitude under discussion is in this country. Which is hardly surprising. If it was perceived as aberrant by the majority then it wouldn't be commonplace.

Suppose you very crudely modelled the spectrum of American attitudes on this topic using some kind of bell curve. I don't think many people across the pond realise just how far apart the American and Australian bell curve means would be. These kind of "the truth is unknowable" truisms may sound wise but don't really teach us very much about reality.

On average, Australian culture views anyone, who even passively demonstrates any significant level of achievement, with a high degree of suspicion. Australians make a national sport of cutting down people who excel in any way. Sure, there are sub-cultures there which can vary considerably from this general trend, but even they feel the influence of this prevailing attitude. The end outcome is that Australians tend to go to considerable effort to hide the things that may single them out as excelling among their peers, and emphasise those things which make them similar. (A few months ago the CEO of the most powerful retail company in Australia gave an interview attempting to reduce public ire at their price gouging tactics, dressed in the uniform of a shelf stacker from their supermarket chain. I'm not saying this could not have happened in America, but there it would have probably been seen as a stunt or a statement... in Australia dressing any other way would have raised eyebrows, and in fact most people initially failed to even notice it for the PR manipulation that it was.)

Geographic proximity will always play a role in bringing cultural norms together, and while the US is a big place, the US population throughout the 20th century had incredible mobility, going where the jobs were, which helped to tighten up that bell curve.

Again, this would only be true if the platform had a laissez-faire attitude toward content, which it clearly does not. What can and can not be shown on the platform is heavily moderated, therefore there is _some_ mandate being fulfilled.

Now we've already agreed that it's not the US's mandate, and I suppose you could argue that it is not the mandate of any of the US's opponents ether. Whether there are any geopolitical entities who don't seem to have the same balance of criticism vs. praise as the others, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader.

Anyone who's used TikTok knows the platform is heavily moderated and not at all an "anything goes" paradise for the exchange of free ideas. So, if, as you suggested, the moderation does not favour the US government's mandate, then the obvious question one should be asking is: whose mandate does it favour?

Yes. For their own citizens, not foreign actors who wish to influence said citizens.

For anyone that has had even moderate experience with TikTok comment moderation, it becomes clear very quickly there's an incredible bias that seemingly disfavours Western interests. This includes calls towards extreme violence that should be banned per their own content policy. I don't think you need to have access to any secret documents to have a good deal of suspicion this platform is being used by foreign actors either directly or indirectly to shape attitudes in the West. If freedom of speech is at stake, protecting TikTok may actually be harmful to that cause.

I wonder why there's no standalone app for PCs.

I have to say this is surprising. I have a cousin who co-founded what was once the largest email spam filtering company in Europe. He said that if he could get a do-over he'd just take a 9-to-5 and not deal with the stress and how much it had aged him. Of course this is just an anecdote and it's possible he was doing it wrong™, but it certainly fits the trend with others I have spoken to. For example, there's a feeling that the buck stops with you, it's difficult to establish boundaries for a healthy work life balance because there's no one else to pick up the slack. And if no one picks up the slack then you just get outcompeted by the businesses that do.

I wonder if there's a difference between various types of self employment where some are on net less stressful than others. In my cousin's case as a co-founder, there may still have been a lot of pressure from other team members, which is only marginally better than having a boss. Also, if there are effective strategies one can employ to limit issues that can have a negative impact in a self employed context, then further studies to elucidate such would be incredibly valuable.

So your car relies on the very things that may be unavailable in a major disaster scenario? I wonder if we're building insufficient redundancy into our civilisation always assuming all the modern niceties must always be there.

Not to mention the rather consistent crashing. I see it across multiple systems which makes me wonder if the developers even use it themselves.

Thunderbird seems to run everything in a single thread, something I only noticed when I tried to sync some large mailing list folders and the UI basically became unusable. I was really hoping to switch to it before this cropped up.

You're right in that only the libiio firmware relies on the CPU to forward the samples out to the ethernet interface. The UHD firmware on the other hand does not seem to occupy the CPU to do this, however I have still had trouble getting transfer speeds to go much faster than they do with libiio (and I've had a lot of other problems with UHD personally). I'm not certain what could cause this limitation though.

In theory the hardware probably could do what you're describing if someone wanted to hack the FPGA internals themselves. I'd love to hear if you ever have any success getting things running better.

They're great for all sort of exploratory and prototyping work on the cheap. There's a pretty active community as well developing all sorts of software tools to give you a leg up.

The AntSDR is a pretty solid piece of kit. It's compatible with the ADALM-PLUTO, so the available documentation is pretty great, and it's got both a compact and very solid construction (unlike a lot of the other offerings in the market).

The one thing to keep in mind (my experience is with the E200 though the E310 hardware architecture seems pretty similar from what I can see) is that the sampling rate is somewhat CPU bound by the onboard CPU. In spite of having a GigE interface, your sample rate will be limited to somewhere on the order of 110 MB/s which will give you a combined (Rx and Tx) sample rate of under 15 mega samples per second. I have heard of some people try to overclock these to boost the sample rate a bit. If that is all you need I could definitely recommend it though.

Oh good, Reddit seems to be leaking in again.

Your quotes seem to reinforce parent's assertion he's not talking about version control in the form of tooling but some kind of versioning in the code itself: "...while tests and versions..."

Conventions really don't bother me, I'm happy to adapt. Even case insensitivity, while not so common on Unix, can generally be dealt with. Underscore insensitivity though is kind of wild and breaks a lot of things (and a case insensitivity exception for the first character only, while tacitly admitting there really is a problem here, is just adding even more inconsistency).

The language has a lot going for it, however, its chosen scheme for identifier resolution undermines a lot of existing tooling people are used to using with other languages, which has kept a lot of people (including my self) away from seriously considering it.