jholman

I have very few issues with Firefox. The two that I suspect are:

1) Google-owned sites seem to just chew CPU on Firefox. In particular I'm thinking of GMail and Youtube, both of which I'm a heavy user of, and also Maps. But no non-google sites seem to have this problem.

2) I'm constantly getting websites saying "This is your first time using this device, are you sure you're you?", and I haven't tried whether it's better on Chrome, but it's pretty crazy because I've literally never used your stupid site with any other device, and I used it with THIS device just last month you idiots. I'm just blind guessing that this is some kind of problem as a result of Firefox privacy choices, like maybe the site doesn't know how to use cookies in a way that doesn't trigger anti-tracking. For example banks.

But Firefox can keep thousands of tabs open at once (thousands. plural. not kidding, not exaggerating.), it has working uBO, and the frequency of "just because we wanted to" UX changes is much lower. It's just a better choice all around.

If you don't care about performance, we can make that code a lot shorter.

  float Q_rsqrt(float number) {
    return 1 / sqrt(number);
  }

a bit dramatic. there has to be an adjustment of teaching/assessing, but nothing that would "ruin" anyone's life.

If you don't have the power to just change your mind about what the entire curriculum and/or assessment context is, it can be a workload increase of dozens of hours per week or more. If you do have the power, and do want to change your entire curriculum, it's hundreds of hours one-time. "Lives basically ruined" is an exaggeration, but you're preposterously understating the negative impact.

is it spam if it's useful and solves a problem?

Whether or not it's useful has nothing to do with whether or not it's spam. I'm not claiming that your product is spam -- I'll get back to that -- but your reply to the spam accusation is completely wrong.

As for your hypothesis, I've had interactions where it did a good job of generating alternative activities/exercises, and interactions where it strenuously and lengthily kept suggesting absolute garbage. There's already garbage on the internet, we don't need LLMs to generate more. But yes, I've had situations where I got a good suggestion or two or three, in a list of ten or twenty, and although that's kind of blech, it's still better than not having the good suggestions.

If you're already using Firefox, all you have to do is click the Reader Mode button, at the right edge of your URL bar.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-reader-view-clu...

Yikes, that's a grim story.

Yeah, the injury stats are way higher than death. I just couldn't find a fast way to disambiguate serious injuries from not-so-serious-but-we-still-care injuries from the sort of bite that really just merits a fake apology and everyone gets on with their lives.

At the other extreme, I've had first-hand knowledge of a case where someone taunted a dog repeatedly over many months (stupid kid, stupid dog-owners, lots of mistakes were made), eventually the kid got bit, didn't even need stitches, but they called animal control.

So. Non-fatal dog-attacks have a very wide range of impact, and I had no idea how to disentangle those.

Oh, after all that writing I just did, I went back and re-read your source. In 2022 there were 17,500 home insurance claims related to dog bites, at an average cost of $64k. That sounds like a pretty reasonable proxy for serious injury due to injuries from dog bites from pets, the sort of pets that could plausibly have been inappropriately not-on-leash (remember we're discussing whether or not it's "incredibly dangerous and irresponsible" to ever have your dog unrestrained).

Yes, I agree with you, and poorly-fed dogs might do things that a privileged pet might never consider. And, a fortiori, packs of poorly-fed dogs.

But the comment I was responding to was from a commenter whose bio says they're in Philidelphia, responding to a comment that I think was probably pretty developed-country, on a story from a Brit living in America. So I think we're talking about the developed-country context.

I'm not disagreeing with the text of what you wrote, though.

The amount of children killed or injured by poorly restrained dogs is very high.

This claim is interesting, if true. Can you back it up? I spent 15 minutes on research, and my preliminary findings, using US statistics (I'm not American but it's just easier to google American stuff) suggest that:

a) about 42 Americans die to dog attacks per year (about 0.13 per 100k population) (very high confidence)

b) it looks like about half of those are kids under 17, with ages 1-4 over-represented (very high confidence)

c) most of those kids-dying-to-dogs deaths are not due to unrestrained dogs in public, but rather infants in their family homes, dying to dogs owned by the child's parents (low to medium confidence)

For example, WP gathers media/journal reports on dog fatalities, and has 16 records for 2023 (so presumably about 1/3 of the fatalities for that year). 6 of those are children. Of those 6 children, 4 died to the family pet, the other 2 died to neighbours' dogs while in their own home. Extrapolating from that that suggests that the number of American children killed by poorly restrained dogs, other than their own family, is roughly 6. Out of around 10k child fatalities per year in the US.

That doesn't seem "very high" to me, but that's just a matter of opinion. Do you have data that shows a different pattern?

My sense is that dogs prioritize pack/family togetherness ahead of freedom. They don't value all other people (and to a dog, "people" means dogs, humans, and sometimes other species), but also they do not only value their "owner". They value their family, their pack. They want to be with those they want to be with, in action and in rest.

After that, they value things like food, exercise, curiousity, and the absence of immediate pain.

Most dogs, that haven't been traumatized, seem to have a pretty reasonable attitude toward personal safety: you mustn't let fear rule you. But some dogs, that have been traumatized, can be inordinately concerned with what they perceive to be their personal safety, in some cases to the point of (understandable, tragic) derangement.

Maybe you know something particular about metabolic treatments. But if this is just a structural argument from more or less first principles, I think it's structurally weak. There's no reason to assume that your body's tolerance to starvation is the same as, or poorer than, the cancer's tolerance to starvation.

For example, chemotherapy is poison, just poison that is hoped to poison the cancer much more strongly than the patient. But it always hurts the patient.

Another broader example, fevers are bad for you. But in many situations, they're worse for a pathogen that has infected you, so your body tries a fever in response to some immune observations. This is why you should generally not treat a mild fever, unlike a too-intense fever. Not medical advice, I'm not a doctor.

But maybe, unlike me, you have specific knowledge of the medical issues and you have more-specific reasons to argue that metabolic attacks can't work on cancer?

This might help?

https://youtu.be/WdtK9Sj8ADw?list=PLoTU9_iCGa6go3vsnxlNn1wZS...

I used to have a coworker, a senior dev of decades of experience, who insisted that MacOS was a real Linux, "just like BSD". Sigh.

Of course, this belief probably had no downsides or negative consequences, other than hurting my brain, which they probably did not regard as a significant problem.

It'd be more apt to write "fomented divisions", rather than "fermented divisions".

Generally there needs to be some sort of intent.

Often yes, but often not.

Criminal negligence is a thing. That's a standard of mens rea that's lower than intent, or foreknowlege, or recklessness. And it's particularly a thing in the context of licensed professions.

I vouched your comment, because I think you're precisely making the relevant point in the first two paragraphs.

However, I think you're wrong, at least in part, in your third paragraph. I mean, I think the word "mostly" is wrong in that paragraph. Politicians from all political factions are (quite reasonably) under pressure to lower the cost of doing the work of government, and (quite reasonably) to raise the integrity of the process. Combined with some of the dysfunction inherent in agent-principal problems, I think that's more than enough to cause the problem you're talking about. I experience this firsthand in a jurisdiction that has much less of the "demolish the entire administrative state" that afflicts the American right wing (which I'm guessing is your point of reference).

Mind you, I am not claiming that the problem is not badly worsened by American right-wing politics. I wouldn't know. I'm just claiming that the problem is semi-intrinsic to the situation, and I strongly doubt that it's "mostly" caused by those particular political issues.

I'm confused. You're complaining about the use of the word "charity"?

Background: You make an argument that at least some people should consider putting contributions to society ahead of "making yet another few hundred thousand". I agree with you, at least broadly, and I think the up-thread poster is not disagreeing.

Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.

The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.

---------

I also am sympathetic to the GP's point, about which you are so "disgusted", but I think there's room to disagree there.

I am sympathetic because professionally I do work that many people think is "good for society", I currently earn approximately median income (below mean) for my age/gender/nationality, far far below software engineer pay, and I am treated with unbelievable disrespect by my employer, the government. If I was not trapped in this job by personal circumstance (for now), the disrespect part would definitely factor into my decision making about staying in this allegedly-virtuous job. If you're gonna pay people below market, and you treat them badly, that's not a combination that gets you quality employees. Even if there's some social purpose.

Do not touch unless you understand how the license works and want to do so anyway.

Which is the license that you think it's safe to touch when you don't understand how it works?

I think it's a common need.

I'll add that I think in this case, an important part of the use-case is a credible commitment to anonymizing the answers.

A warrior does not trifle with secret messages! Have you no honour?

I used to do approximately this, from maybe the mid-90s to 2015-ish, but finally that keyboard died (RIP dear friend) and I find that it doesn't work properly on any keyboard I've found since.

Not quite the side of my palm, but the joint where my pinky meets my palm. My hands are relatively large, dunno if that's relevant.

I should put more work into buying a keyboard that it does work on, I think using my finger for Ctrl might be starting to cause RSIs in my middle-aged hands.

I guess I'll also add that for me it's a bigger deal when gaming than when using CUA. That Ctrl button is the one true place to put crouch, dangit.

Characterizing the US's current commitments in Ukraine and Israel as 1.5 fronts is baffling. Neither of those constitutes even a tiny fraction of the American capability to wage war.

Yes, there are some commitments in the Eastern Med, but as Ford heads home, the Bataan ARG of literally three ships and zero full-sized aircraft carriers is judged sufficient to hold that down, because remember that their role in Israel is to, uh, do exactly nothing.

Now, putting aside Israel-as-such, there is Ike's group in the Red Sea. The Red Sea presence isn't directly about Israel, but about Houthi threats to global shipping. If the US was in a hot war, global shipping could go around Africa (which Maersk and another line had already decided to do, I've seen some pundit modelling on the costs and consequences, it's pretty miserable from the standards of peacetime, with consequences on the consumer supply chain, but in terms of "oh no the US might lose a hot war with China", going around Africa will just have to work itself out).

And yes, they're moving amazing amounts of arms to Ukraine, but not as much as it looks like. There's a lot of already-destined-for-scrap vehicles, and a lot of ammunition that was approaching the end of its shelf life, and so on. What fraction of Abrams went to Ukraine? (under 1%) How many F16s are going to Ukraine? (I believe that all nations collectively have committed around 60 F16s, which if supplied entirely by the US would be about 2% of US fighter aircraft.) Don't get it twisted, the US is not going full-bore in Ukraine. The stockpiles and production capacity of 155mm is a concern for sure, and air defense missiles too. But it's not even close to being a "front", even in terms of the logistics demands (and obviously in terms of combat personnel it is 0% of a front). And because of that conflict, Russia is nearly incapable of doing anything more aggressive than it already is, which frees up military resources relative to the situation 2 years ago. Except 155mm, of course.

None of this means that the US does or does not need to increase the size of its fleet to meet goals involving its pacing threat, which is the context of this thread, and I'm agnostic about that higher-level claim. And I'm not saying that everything is peachy, neither with respect to the health of the US fleet in general, or in particular with respect to industrial competitiveness vis a vis China. But the US is not currently in a 1.5-front war, that's just absurd.

"Worse Is Better", as a description of a set of engineering values embodied by C, is from 1989.

I'm taking your word for it that UB was invented for C standardization (I have no knowledge of that history, and your claim seems plausible), and I'm going to say that probably they didn't invent it in the last year of the seven-year standardization effort, so probably UB is older than Worse Is Better.

Seems to me that CE covers sections 1, 2, 3, 7, and a bit of 5, and CS covers 4, 5, and 6. A traditional CS education should teach 3, even though doing 3 is absolutely not the job of CS grads.

You're making a category error, I think. This books/course doesn't cover physics. It doesn't even cover signal stuff, like stuff about how fast the voltage levels stabilize, or even voltages at all.

It's not "silicon wafer to Tetris" or "pile of protons and neutrons to Tetris" or "transistors to Tetris". You start with nand gates (and later also you get flipflops for free).

This course would work equally well on nand gates made of carved wooden gears, or nand gates made with fluidic logic, or nand gates made by encoding the whole thing into O-gauge hobby railroads.

If that's the level of explanation you seek, this book is incredible.

There are at least two obvious alternatives to (fully) deepcloning.

First, many "everything must be immutable" libraries provide data structures that give operations that feel like mutations (but actually are not), and many of those can re-use all the old objects that are not mutated. This could save a lot, relative to full naive deepcopies. Or it could save very little, depending on what you're doing.

Second, if you have the ability, you can always mutate before recursion and then revert when the recursion finishes. This could potentially be very tricky, because it's not always easy to revert mutations. As such, it's not a good plan for a prototype, but if you can get it right, this could make your tree search wayyyyy faster.

How is this better than deepcopying?

Deserializing requires paying all the same costs as deepcopying, both in terms of compute time and in terms of memory usage, but it also incurs the extra costs of parsing.

I'm not saying that there wouldn't be benefits to having a serializer for their gamestate (because there would surely be benefits), but I just cannot understand this as an alternative for the problem they described.

And null. I know that typeof(null) says 'object', but it's lying. When I say "it's lying", I mean that according to the spec, null is of type null. Also it has absolutely nothing in common with objects except for the output of typeof.

Also these days there's BigInt.

What the parent posts are trying to hint to you is that the default logging behaviour of the console is the live-look model, which is almost never what you wanted with logging. (Though it does have other uses.) To avoid the live-look, you can deep clone, or just stringify.

My apologies.

GP> ChatGPT recommended to start from linear algebra, then calculus, followed by probability and statistics. Phase 2 would be Fundamentals of ML. Phase 3 - Deep Learning and NN. And so on.

Parent> If you want to learn to BUILD AI, ChatGPT's recommendations are a good start

you> what did ChatGPT recommend?

I think your token window is a bit too small.

Wait, your argument is

"this suspension by Apple couldn't be due to Apple catching them laundering money"

because

"this isn't money laundering"

because

"if someone laundered money this way, they would get caught"?

Do you not understand that you just destroyed your own argument?

And I have inside knowledge that you're wrong at least much of the time. This particular case, I have no idea, but extremely competent teams inside FAANG believe that there are many billions of dollars of attempted money laundering of this form, that they catch and stop.