reshlo

The trailer also reminded me strongly of House of Leaves.

These compromises are usually caught within hours by security researchers performing automated scanning of all published packages.

Getting another job when you have Meta on your CV is a lot easier than moving to another country.

How it’s done today is that they rely on your other marks from earlier in the semester to inform how your exam grade should be adjusted. That doesn’t work if there are no other marks to use.

Dozens of credible witnesses, including several who authored sworn affidavits, claim they saw Richard Pearse achieve powered flight before the Wright brothers. Pearse is a much better option if someone wants to claim the Wright brothers were not the first.

It’s not just “extended” flavours of Markdown that allow embedding HTML. The original reference implementation supports this too.[0]

For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags.

[0] https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#html

The claim doesn’t need to be substantiated, because it doesn’t matter whether they actually will control Venezuela, it only matters that it was their intent to do so, which Rubio and Trump have both admitted.

It doesn’t matter whether the US actually has control, only that the military action was taken with intent to establish control.

This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

Isn’t it?

This market will resolve to "Yes" if the United States commences a military offensive intended to establish control over any portion of Venezuela between November 3, 2025, and January 31, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No".

The widespread acceptance of Postel’s Law also encourages poor authorship, because if you know clients have to be liberal in what they accept, there is no incentive to be conservative in what you send.

If authored files had to be valid in order to work, how would the author have sold you an invalid file in the first place? They would have seen that it didn’t work when they were making it, and fixed it. If they’d sold you a book that didn’t open, you’d be entitled to a refund.

The Economist recently had a piece on word usage of British Parliament members. They are adopting words and phrases commonly seen in AI.

Many of the speeches given by MPs are likely to have been written beforehand, in whole or in part. Wouldn’t the more likely explanation be that they, or their staff, are using LLMs to write their speeches?

All of those things are more than 5 years old.

The randomisation features were significantly improved in Safari 26. Is that the version you have?

People who end up leading successful companies are often able to do so not because they’re more willing to take risks than others, but rather because they have experienced more good luck than others. Take Bill Gates, for example. His parents sent him to an exclusive private school, which afforded him regular access to computers from an early age, giving him valuable experience that most others his age could not access, through no fault of their own. Microsoft was able to make a crucial business deal with IBM because Gates’ mother knew the CEO. Someone else with equal skill and appetite for risk would have found it much more difficult to be as successful as Gates was, because their parents were likely not rich and not connected to the right people.

F# can do this too.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-ref...

What good is a contract if you can’t prove what its terms are? Such a contract is worth the paper it’s printed on.

https://xkcd.com/1070/

In the Limitations and Directions for Future Research, it also note that right-wing ideologies tend to be more prosocial toward ingroup members than left-wing

That supports the original comment, which asserted that right-wingers often only experience empathy for the ingroup while left-wingers also experience it for the outgroup:

We have seen this pattern repeated with numerous people who share Adams' political opinions, in that this level of empathy only seems to arrive once they themselves go through a similar experience. People who have that empathy without the need of that direct experience tend to have different politics.

Do you think that prosocial is the same as empathy?

Empathy is one of the main prosocial traits that the second linked study analysed.

Prosocial means getting a group/everyone to do things.

No it doesn’t, it means your individual behaviour benefits others. Empathy is one of the most obvious things to analyse when investigating prosociality because empathy motivates you to behave in ways that benefit others.

Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering... This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group.[0]

Our large-scale investigation of the relation between political orientation and prosociality suggests that supporters of left-wing ideologies may indeed be more prosocial than supporters of right-wing ideologies... However, the relation between political orientation and prosociality is fragile, and discovering it may depend on the methods used to operationalize prosociality in particular... Nonetheless, we are confident that our investigation has brought us one step closer to solving the puzzle about whether our political orientation is intertwined with how prosocial we behave toward unknown others—which we cautiously answer in the affirmative.[1]

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281241/

[1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/19485506241298341

“It would enhance productivity” is not a sufficient justification for requiring someone to do something. Ignoring safety regulations would often enhance productivity, but I’m sure you understand why we shouldn’t do that.

If more people valued how others perceive them more than they valued winning, the world would be a better place.

"The Ukraine" is grammatically incorrect for the same reason "the England" is grammatically incorrect. An article doesn't go there.

The politically incorrect usage here is not bound to intent, because unaware readers will subconsciously lower Ukraine's status in their minds regardless of whether the writer intended them to do so.

The official status, or lack thereof, of the comment doesn't matter either. There is no compelling reason to not use the accepted name. If your friend was called James, would you intentionally call him "the James" just because you're not making an official statement? That doesn't make any sense.

the Ukraine

It’s called Ukraine. It would be particularly prudent to avoid using the Soviet-era nomenclature given the context of the conversation you’re participating in.

"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844

Is the source code for every binary blob present on an Android device available for inspection, and is the code running on every Android device verifiable as having been built from that source?

or through convictions

If they wanted to use this evidence for a normal criminal case, they would just do parallel construction.

NACKs of bad Rust code, or Rust code that you don’t want in the system that you maintain, would be fine. The specific NACK at issue here was a NACK of code that used a maintainer’s API from a language that he didn’t like, which Linus has confirmed is not allowed.

Maintainers like Hellwig who do not want to integrate Rust do not have to. But they also cannot dictate the language or manner of code that touches their area of control but does not alter it. The pull request Hellwig objected to "DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL," Torvalds writes (all-caps emphasis his), and was "literally just another user of it, in a completely separate subdirectory."

"Honestly, what you have been doing is basically saying 'as a DMA maintainer I control what the DMA code is used for.' And that is not how any of this works," Torvalds writes.

Torvalds writes Hellwig that "I respect you technically, and I like working with you," and that he likes when Hellwig "call[s] me out on my bullshit," as there "needs to be people who just stand up to me and tell me I'm full of shit." But, Torvalds writes, "Now I'm calling you out on YOURS."

The leader goes on to state that maintainers who want to be involved in Rust can be, and can influence what Rust bindings look like. Those who "are taking the 'I don't want to deal with Rust' option," Torvalds writes, can do so—later describing it as a "wall of protection"—but also have no say on Rust code that builds on their C interfaces.

"Put another way: the 'nobody is forced to deal with Rust' does not imply 'everybody is allowed to veto any Rust code.'" Maintainers might also find space in the middle, being aware of Rust bindings and working with Rust developers, but not actively involved, Torvalds writes.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/02/linux-leaders-pave-a...

In what way is the sole person who decides whether code gets merged into Linux not the boss of everyone who writes code for Linux?

I addressed your second point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43075508

I don’t think that’s an accurate way to describe what happened, no. He seems to be enthusiastic about it and to genuinely want it to succeed.

"A lot of people actually think we're somewhat too risk averse," said Torvalds. "So when it comes to Rust, it's been discussed for multiple years by now. It's getting to the point where real soon now, we will actually have it merged in the kernel. Maybe next release."…

"Before the Rust people get all excited," the Linux kernel creator and chief said. "Right? You know who you are. To me, it's a trial run, right? We want to have [Rust's] memory safety. So there are real technical reasons why Rust is a good idea in the kernel…”

“And hopefully, it works out, and people have been working on it a lot, so I really hope it works out…”

https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/23/linus_torvalds_rust_l...

Last September he was still insisting he thinks the project will not fail, and he was not exactly subtle in his criticism of maintainers who refuse to engage with it in good faith.

"Clearly, there are people who just don't like the notion of Rust, and having Rust encroach on their area.

"People have even been talking about the Rust integration being a failure … We've been doing this for a couple of years now so it's way too early to even say that, but I also think that even if it were to become a failure – and I don't think it will – that's how you learn," he said.

"So I see the whole Rust thing as positive, even if the arguments are not necessarily always [so]."…

With impressive diplomacy, considering his outbursts of years past, Torvalds went on, "There's a lot of people who are used to the C model, and they don't necessarily like the differences... and that's ok.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/19/torvalds_talks_rust_i...

The maintainers in question did not ask for people to add Rust to the kernel. They have no obligation to be welcoming to it.

Their boss, however, did ask for it, so yes, they do have an obligation to be welcoming to it.