HN user
How does the value of LLM-produced 100% branch coverage compare to no-LLM 100% branch coverage?
This is such a salient question. Sometimes (definitely not always) the test suites produced by LLMs are so trivial it's scary. Coverage can be an illusion for sure.
But the legal immigration system is broken and they did that on purpose. And how is your immigration status relevant to your contribution to taxes?
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
There is value beyond IPO- companies continue to sell ("issue") shares on the public market as a way of generating cash. They also buy back shares when with excess cash, usually when the market value is low but sometimes, irrationally IMO, when it is high. They also use this as an incentive-backed compensation pool. The relative value of these is debatable, but I don't think it is correct that post-IPO public shares are just traded between third-parties making short-term bets. Happy to be corrected.
Yes many people don’t vote because of deliberately fettered access to polling and/or a generally correct understanding that the electoral college nullifies or makes redundant their vote in their jurisdiction. Your vote for a third party is a signal but essentially a qualified abstention. Your high horse however is so misguided and absurd- to suggest that you held a moral high ground because the Biden administration supported the Gaza genocide is flatly wrong. If you want to place blame for that administration’s actions, blame Citizen’s United, blame AIPAC, blame the DNC, etc. And write letters, protest, get mad. But facilitating the ascent of what is objectively, obviously, candidly worse to make that statement is insulting to the intelligence of anyone to whom you make the argument. Perhaps your vote was in a jurisdiction where you could assume the electoral votes would go to the Dems anyway, but that just makes it flat out virtue signaling. The left will continue to cut off its nose to spite its face to the peril of US democracy and world peace. You nailed em tho.
As my friend said of doing a PhD, “you learn more and more about less and less until sooner or later you know nothing at all”
IMO, speaking from the perspective of an ecology doctorate, while PhDs have much to contribute outside of academia, the training is laser focused on that route, to the detriment of students and funders (which is, generally speaking, society/taxpayers). The reality is more PhDs are minted than exist professorships, yet many advisors wish you to be their academic offspring, not just continuing in research but in their line of research. This dynamic was far more the cause of mental health issues than the work being “hard”, which checks out since there are innumerable other forms of hard and harder work.
Not a stupid question at all. But these aren't search and rescue services, they are just other sailors. I'm talking about locales that are far far outside of the realm of typical rescue services, and in no particular jurisdiction. Your best bet for rescue is your fellow sailors or commercial shipping traffic. Radio nets like the Pacific Seafarers Net allow you to make yourself known so that folks can keep tabs on you (and you them) in case something happens.
EPIRB and other emergency beacons still use HF radio frequencies (not HAM of course) and countries like the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and others I'm sure are monitoring those signals. But even then, they will first and foremost look to the seafaring community to actually render assistance, and that kind of call to action does often make its way through HAM radio nets, though I'm not sure exactly how, e.g., the U.S. Coast Guard makes that first outreach as the rescue coordinator.
I got my license because I'm an offshore sailor. It is useful as safety and communication equipment (radio nets to keep track of other boats, their weather and fishing conditions :), and let your would-be-rescuers know your position and status), but also for sending and receiving data. It is my primary interface for weather info at sea using traditional weatherfax, but also more modern GRIB extraction. I can even update my blog using my SSB on HAM frequencies at sea. It's fun. Never had a shoreside station though.
In California it seems a lot of cities decided to try and add bike infrastructure but the design process yielded many compromises, since that infrastructure comes at the expense of car (and parking) infrastructure. As a result we got really bad bike lanes, but gave up few parking spots. The design process declared victory via compromise- best of both worlds. In reality, the bike lanes are worthless and cyclists like myself just use the primary vehicle lanes, since not dying is more important than protecting the convenience and respecting the supremacy of other road users. Drivers honk and yell and deliberately endanger you, but that was true before too.
The article talks about using design and engineering out of the problem. I do not believe that is what was done in the cities you cite, even if that was their headline intention.
Good points. It would be a productive use of all of the time those trucks spend idling too, going into and out of ports and in freeway traffic. Seems like there are times and circumstances when directing excess diesel energy to the trailer battery could be reasonable.
It is sometimes surprising to learn which organisms are more or less like us. Annelid worms like the ones you likely find in the soils where you live do have brains, for example, albeit ones with different characteristics than those of crustaceans or mammals [1]. They don’t have lungs though sometimes gills. Are they more like crabs or humans? Tough to say but fun to ponder. Incidentally, of the marine invertebrates, the ones we are most closely related to are tunicates and salps, which are blobs that filter feed [2]. Who said cladistics wasn’t cool?
Imagine all the ways we can’t imagine how other organisms experience their existence. But as you learn more about their biology it’s incredible how much we share.
1. https://frontiersinzoology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
2. https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/tunicates-not-...
This is about water use, as opposed to land use. Land use matters, but let's try to stay focused for a second, esp. b/c some of the livestock are not local to the feed grows.
The Colorado River has barely touched the Gulf of California for years. There is inherent value as well as economic value in the ecosystem services that result from allowing natural systems to thrive... or even just function at all.
Here is a nice summary of the state and characters in Colorado River ecology: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-...
I hope we are not so cynical as to suggest that the over-extraction of the river and the destruction of the reliant ecosystems is an acceptable consequence of human success.
Even if you like hamburgers, is it worth the cost to continue to over-extract for their production from locations that cannot support it just because people have been doing it for a while and have a strong sense of private property rights? Why shouldn't we tell these farmers to pay up for the water or go somewhere to produce that food where it is more abundant?
Imperial Valley farmers are paying a trivial $20/acre-foot of water and are primarily growing hay to feed domestic and foreign livestock. Looks like 685K acre-feet per year to feed livestock out of a total water extraction of 1188K acre-feet (had to add up the totals from their graph to get that). So that means ~58% of the water is for cows.
Given how politically impossible it seems to be to increase rates or re-litigate water rights, I think I have to agree with the conclusion of the article: we got to stop eating the meat they're producing.
The health of the Colorado River Basin affects tons of people very directly in the U.S. and Mexico. We have been over-extracting it for ages. I am in favor of wise water usage in non-agricultural settings, but it's time we took action to mitigate the increasingly detrimental impacts of legacy water users from a legacy social and environmental climate.
This is really cool. Can’t underestimate the power of this material to inspire future scientists. Hell I am a scientist and it inspires me too. I look forward to the launch (hehe)
100% yeah totally agree, I feel very similarly about TS (and can barely stand vanilla JS at this point)
Sure, a little bit. It is a change in peoples' workflows after all, and a lot of developers are pretty choosy about that. But I think you can overcome that if you make a respectful case.
I think you are spot on that people coming from weakly typed languages often don't realize what they're missing. "It clutters the code" is really just "I'm not used to seeing it that way" so if you can get people to try it out (maybe in a well-cordoned area of the code base or in some new dev) they will find out for themselves that it saves time and grief in the end.
Huh. In any case, I think the main point of its existence is on the inside.
"Since the IDE can hardly infer any type, and since even the ones it could infer can dynamically change in shape at any time, the IDE cannot provide as helpful suggestions and as powerful navigation as IDEs for other languages can."
I've felt this pain a lot. I finally took the time to learn how to make use of the type hinting that python does offer, and now I write those type hints without even thinking about it. It makes the development experience so much better for me and across the team, since we've all bought in. It doesn't do everything. It is kind of lipstick on a pig. But it's worth doing.
Salmon is found in high-latitude systems around the globe in both hemispheres. Overfishing is something that occurs to populations, not species. Most of the salmon populations that I am familiar with are not over-fished, but have suffered from spawning habitat loss due to dams and logging. Those are major issues and they continue to negatively affect those populations; you are doing the loggers and dam builders a favor by blaming fishing, which is far easier (and more politically palatable) to regulate.
This has been tried and works pretty well. My own parent was able to get into Uni and attended solely b/c they had to accept them if they had a High School diploma [1]. They easily might not have gone to Uni at all otherwise. And here's the thing- perhaps shocking to some- they actually blossomed in that environment, eventually displaying intelligence and aptitude that their High School teachers would never have believed.
So, perhaps binning children as teenagers and sorting them for life is actually wrought? Perhaps some of the people posting against this idea benefitted from admissions not b/c of their higher merit, but because it gave cover to the falsehood of such higher merit.
Universities have "competitive" admissions to cultivate mystique and exclusivity, because it gives them better pricing power and more donations.
[1] https://www.tonganoxiemirror.com/news/2016/jan/22/kansas-uni... [relevant quote: "Prior to 2001, Kansas universities guaranteed admission to anyone who graduated from an accredited Kansas high school, according to the Regents."]
Ha yeah this is all pointless speculation... I can't help but point out though that in my observations of religious people, it's not hard to believe that a majority or even a large majority might (temporarily, occasionally, whatever) eschew some of the central tenets of their "belief" system.
Kind of like how lots of citizens can (temporarily, occasionally, whatever) eschew some of the laws. I'd hardly consider Americans <21 a solid no-alcohol control group even if it were valid to compare adolescents to adults as control and treatment in any study.
Offer a cheaper alternative and you don't have to worry about what they think
Not to be pedantic, but the roaring 40s are by definition not the trade winds. The trade winds are easterlies- they originate from the east and blow towards the west. The "roaring 40s" are westerlies, flowing in the opposite direction and categorically not the trades. Incidentally, NZ is an amazing place to take up wind sports, so I'm with you on the larger point.
Ooof yeah that's brutal. My friends and I held onto that for a long time though because we liked avoiding the fees but also having the hard copy classic tickets to put in scrap books and what not. I know you can still do it some places but I believe you that their numbers are dwindling.
You can usually still go down to the venue during business hours and buy tickets without TM fees, right?
What's hilarious is when I get mad at ticketmaster for charging me convenience fees when I am actively choosing not to walk, bike, or drive down to the venue and circumvent those fees since doing so would be inconvenient. I still make that choice while shaking my fist, and bask in my irony.
Yeah sorry I tried to anticipate and cover this response briefly by pointing out that the population of the world simply is not going to stop eating animal protein because you told them you find it unethical. Their beliefs are not morally dissonant because they do not share your view that killing a sentient being for food is wrong. This thread is about fisheries and my argument is in support of using both wild and farmed fish as a much better alternative for protein production than land-based agriculture, whether that be in support of livestock or soy milk. Your response is "everyone should eat plants exclusively because that works for me with minimal negative unintended consequences."
I also tried to point out the inherit issue with the comparison of "killing 100 billion animals each year" with "growing and eating plants" as though the latter avoids all 100 billion animal deaths. It doesn't. It might move those deaths to other species that you care less about or to a different time or make them lives that never existed rather than lives taken, but it still comes at a cost. So your premise is just incomplete and focuses entirely on the issue that seems to be most important to you personally.
If "you" want to minimize your impact, stop eating animals is an argument that only works for a subset of the human population and is only an accessible solution to a fraction of that. Putting aside the gross ethnocenctricity, it simply is not going to work as a solution. The converse is that "some land is not suitable for crop agriculture but is usable for grazing" and I also routinely see that argument abused even though it is true. Some livestock are raised totally sustainably and even provide ecosystem services (trampling is good for some systems and cattle do it in lieu of the native grazers that are now gone). But that doesn't mean that all cattle can be raised at no cost. You're making that argument, just about row crops, I guess.
FWIW, soy production in Brazil in the service of foreign markets is... not very sustainable even if it's not for feed [1].
I remember when I was younger and I was like, "I survive fine on <2 gallons of fresh water a day... how can there possibly be a water supply issue anywhere?" Or, more generally, "I can modify my behavior with few personal consequences to fit into a sustainable model." So that is great. Do it. But I would argue you are avoiding grappling with the full impacts of your own choices and, even if they'd be better alternatives anyway, you're failing to recognize that your choices are not available to everyone.
Huh, I had considered consumption to be necessary for my own persistence.
Most increase in land-based agricultural productivity in this day and age comes from intensification on existing land or removal of forested habitats. Those come at a huge cost to biodiversity and ecosystem services. They also have social costs to other humans.
"Surely you can figure out how eating beans is a little more kind." I don't think this snarkiness is very productive, but I'm super used to hearing this sentiment; often the people who express this type of idea have really good intentions that I am totally aligned with, but they also fall into logical fallacies usually due to missing information around ecology, agriculture, and food systems. It makes perfect sense if you take a very narrow view of how food is produced and what alternatives there are for land and water use: just eat a bean because it doesn't scream! Totally. But growing that bean comes at a cost and ignoring that because you read Sinclair or can afford to shop for high-end foods isn't helpful. I think it is a fantasy to suggest that the problems will be solved if peoples and cultures around the world just subscribe to my view of what is ethical or desirable.
Any fish would prefer you eat a bean. But the animals and plants that would use the land on which its grown would prefer you eat a fish. Those of us working to build sustainable food systems that minimize the overall impact on natural systems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services will fail if we take such a simplistic and naive view of the tradeoffs.
Perhaps that is true if you solely interact with food after it is dead and processed. Many people live much closer to their food production. I don't view the phrase "humane slaughter" as an attempt to insulate "us"; I think it is an acknowledgement by practitioners that they are mindful of what they are doing and to whom. It is also a direct reference to applicable laws where that term is codified.
Some people view killing animals for food as entirely humane, which is to say some combination of natural and ethical. You may not view any kind of animal slaughter as humane, but if pressed could you describe how humane your soy, wheat, etc. production is?
Slowly but surely we are seeing good traceability in seafood. It's hard though, so it's taking a while. Checkout https://legitfish.com/
Interesting video, but it doesn't show slaughter at all, just impressive machinery for quickly processing massive amounts of fish.
I disagree that having a person rather than a machine process food products is related to the ethics of animal consumption, but I tend to think about this stuff in terms of how do you continue to feed 9B people, around 3B of whom rely on seafood for their primary protein source. I consider it a great privilege to buy bespoke premium products that cater to my perceptions of the world, but it doesn't really solve the problems around mass producing enough healthy food to sustainably feed the world population. Having a human handle all of those dead fish and turn them into marketable products would drive their price up so much that it would push people to protein sources that are much more carbon-, water-, and nutrient-intensive. Making the processing humane is super important, but it needs to be rational and efficient.