judemelancon

I don't think they have an interest in forgiveness. I'm not sure it's a concept in their worldview.

This is not true anywhere I've lived, and I'm curious where it is true.

Oh, I thought you meant "everyone" in a sense including actual human persons and the devices on their home network.

I think I must misunderstand. Are you saying that you upgrade and reboot every production system that you administer to apply each commit to the kernel (branch it's using) essentially immediately? That doesn't make sense to me for a few reasons, but I struggle to find a different reading that applies "upgrade and reboot on a moment's notice" to the "slipped into mainline linux" scenario. Kindly help me to do so.

To preemptively clarify, I'm not saying anything about these particular researchers.

Having established that, are you saying that you can't even conceptualize a conflict of interest potentially clouding someone's judgement any more if the amount of money and the person's perceived status and skill level all get increased?

Disagreeing about the significance of the conflict of interest is one thing, but claiming not to understand how it could make sense is a drastically stronger claim.

The first three authors, who are asterisked for "equal contribution", appear to work for Anthropic. That would imply an interest in making Anthropic's LLM products valuable.

What is the confusion here?

Documentation absolutely has a cost, but that last sentence is a substantial overgeneralization. Counterexamples include a search engine, a quilt, an impact driver, and a box of a basic LEGO bricks.

I'm glad you admit everyone deserves breaks; it seems to have been remarkably easy to convince you. I'm also glad to see your position on paying for the rest shift from outright opposition to unspecified contracts being excessive.

None of the rest of your reply is actually a response to what I said, though some of it is interesting. You also notably didn't respond to what I said about politicians.

Regarding Fortran programmers' contracts being honored, I would certainly hope any business would meet its contractual obligations (when they are moral and legal). Surely you aren't actually suggesting they shouldn't? Whether signing such a contract was a good idea or not, the very concept of a contract is founded on actually executing the terms of the agreement afterward.

I have never encountered a business that consistently swiftly dropped the underperforming parts of the team. I know that stack ranking firms supposedly exist, but they are far from typical. Even if your employment history is atypical, surely you've encountered less than efficient employees at clients, at vendors, and just out in the world in retail or restaurants; have you never happened to observe some of them staying in those positions at length? If you have seen private enterprise up close, it's hard to fathom the idea that it runs lean operations without waste.

Furthermore, many businesses have employees, sometimes many of them, who don't have the kind of clear work products that would make "the underperforming 25% of the team" potentially conceptually coherent. Plenty have employees with as little to do as a TBM oiler or an elevator operator. The market isn't just taking its time in pushing them to be more efficient, either. Actual markets and actual managers don't work like in an entry-level economics class.

Why exactly should construction workers clean up, change, and get briefed for free? How are those not work? Do you attend work meetings for free? Why don't construction workers deserve breaks? Do you ever take breaks at work? If so, why do you deserve to be paid for these things when construction workers don't? Be explicit.

The idea that US politicians never cross the public sector unions isn't compatible with the facts. The Taft-Hartley Act is law, and PATCO was destroyed.

Is the image, purportedly of a search of the codebase, in this post falsified? https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26318#p554...

#f4f4f4 on #ffffff is a contrast ratio of 1.1 via WCAG's formula. Svbtle should be ashamed.

Governments aren't (supposed to be) private entities.

Why would I ever want to find every reference to a loop or lambda variable with a given name in a file? Such variables repeat frequently with distinct meanings, and each has a narrow scope.

In any case, I wouldn't use an IDE that was so glitchy unless I was forced by necessity; I certainly wouldn't adopt a coping mechanism for it into other languages. Also, for a typical compiled language, deleting the declaration gives you all usages as long as you can (attempt to) build.

Are there any other reasons? Edit: Is this advice perhaps intended to be specific to a particular context?

How is it better? (This is a literal, non-rhetorical question, not a joke about even discussing it.)

One of the most frustrating things for support or customer service personnel to do is respond to something other than what was said.

The internet's supply of masters is much larger and more accessible. Is there a reason to think the video or other sources he found are from someone inferior in expertise to a local? Does that reason apply even for people who live outside major urban centers?

Also, that line of thinking is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Remember the most likely outcome before was recognizing the cost of acquiring the knowledge exceeded the benefit of having it; there would have been no learning at all.

Do you have a source for US outcomes being better? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06... http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-state-of-us-...

I am aware of no such regulation in the USA. Are you?

I always thought the asynchronicity was the main positive of SMS.

The licensing boards are going to burn you to the ground. Even if you're based somewhere out of reach, they'll block payment processing or freeze your accounts.

Your doctor directory makes no reference at all to where they are licensed to practice medicine more specifically than a country. There's no way you're going to get a pass on this.

Ethics are part of competence in my opinion.

Even if you disagree, preventing corporate liability is a component of competence in the law's opinion. That is, if the company is found liable, that's saying the employees responsible did something wrong, even if it's not holding them individually accountable.

This is a brilliant idea and an astonishingly bad function signature.

I have trouble understanding what they're meant to signify, yes. I am a regular human with finite intellect; I admit it.

To actually comprehend this function requires storing those 14 names in short-term memory, reading through the over 300 lines of remaining code, filling in bits of the meaning of those names as they become clear, and only then reading the code again with that mental map. That's the case where none of the 14 have slipped my mind by the time I get back around. That just seems like an awful lot of overhead to net something that could be as easy as reading names if they were better chosen.

Just as a demonstration, why don't you time how long it takes you to figure out what j actually is and then report back?

I am hardly astonished that a 319-line function that opens by declaring x, xtmp, xtmp2, chain_ss, bad_chain, param, depth, i, ok, num, j, retry, cb, and sktmp variables had a bug.

Before someone provides the standard "submit a patch" retort, I'll note that the variable naming is in full compliance with https://www.openssl.org/about/codingstyle.txt even if the function length isn't. A quick sample of other files suggests the function length matches actual practice elsewhere, too.

One of the references http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/04/daily-c... has both. There are some differences.

I honestly think that apparent flip-flop comes down entirely to how terribly ineffective the large human sounds at stopping the train. Telling people to pretend it works is not an effective measure. People can't cancel their biases just from being told to do so, and a bias against such an awful plan is quite reasonable.

Everyone who read this has now given more thought to this issue than Safari's developers seem to have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_High...

In any case, typical interstate highways certainly have numerous interchanges, which are the other kind of junction.

Yes, the fact it's >O(n^k) for all k in [1,2) is why it's not strongly. It's still less than O(n^2).

The paper mentions an algorithm published in 1980 is O( (n/log(n))^2 ), which is better than the Wagner-Fischer algorithm mentioned in the article, even if it's not strongly subquadratic.