braiamp
braiamp on Hacker News
Which is why I in a early comment said that it should be mandated to be protocol agnostic that every store implements. Kinda of USB for stores (btw, this could also be used in mobile stores as bonus points)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50346862
Funny, I though they were loyal to the constitution and the law, not to whoever sits on the chair... I guess the US is really a monarchy.
They both exists, most people would only pick one.
People don't like more than one, they want one for everything. Isn't this hacker news where technically inclined people gather? Feature creep is the thing that most users want. They want a tool to do everything, that includes a single client!
It's not that they don't want to, it's that they can't. They would lose their library by switching clients.
Research has shown us that it is not quite like that. People rarely change for something better, they switch if they believe they are getting something worse. Note that I use "they believe" explicitly here. Most consumers change habits not when they see a new competitor, but when their preferred choice is significantly worse. And what users care about is not the store but their library. The only way to break into the PC games shop market is to mandate an unencumbered protocol, so that any client and any shop can implement it and the library moves with the user
While that is true, there's also the other side of the coin: most bugs are hit, but never reported. Users are pretty unlikely to report bugs and when they do they are very vague about it. That's why client observability is such a boon for teams because they find what bugs users are actually hitting. If the agents are directed using that, then perfect
You refuse to read the claim because you can't understand the claim? Branton said explicitly and I quoted the comment "The percentage of questions closed as duplicates that actually were actually duplicates of existing questions was definitely less than 1%" He's asserting that correct duplication is less than 1%, I am asserting that correct duplicates are about 80%. If I have to comment yet again, you need to get a LLM to understand what I'm saying because I'm done trying to make it more clear
I didn't read that comment. I don't care about that comment at all. I am someone that complains about sloppy duplicate question and it's only in fringe cases that I gave a example of. Branton is saying that almost all duplication is wrong, that's a lie, because if he had any concern by the truth he would not have made that assertion
> The percentage of questions closed as duplicates that actually: **Were actually duplicates of existing questions**; That had a correct, up to date answer -> was definitely less than 1%
No, Bratmon does exactly the same assertion
Only the users. The administration was very much keen to use those as evidence that we were not nice enough, that quality standards were unwelcoming, that closing was rude, that using the tools in the way they are intended to produce a library of high quality question pair wasn't something they were interested to facilitate
In this particular case and with these particular companies... yes, they were sitting in a hoard of cash like dragons. They literally didn't know what to do with it, so they gambled on The Next Big Thing™....
Either way, it's more efficient to give whatever money to bail out individuals/consumers than to bail out rent seeking organizations
Which mod? Show the question
No, I'm classifying your assertion as false and offered reasons why it's false
Codegolf still exists, it's just not part of stackoverflow.
And that's exactly why we get all deaf ears. People that don't even attempt to understand how the site works, instead approach it aggressively and pushing their own ideals, don't feel surprised when that other group LOUDLY ignore those.
> You award dopamine for closing questions
There's zero reward for closing a question. I know that because I casted 2 thousands of those, no reward ever came my way.
> The honeypots in the review queue trained you to err on the side of closing questions
That's also false, there were as many for either side in the audit queue. There's a whole list of post about people complaining[1]. Most of the time, the answer is the same: if you are not sure, hit skip.
For most the negatives audits, SO famously used spam rather than bad posts (which also taught the wrong lesson)
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bdisputed-review-a...
Therefore it should be easy to show evidence of that :)
Doesn't have to be yours, just anyone that you've seen.
That's a lie, you know why? Because I've actually counted it, it's less than 20% wrong. And it's mostly because a rule of thumb got grossly misapplied: if you want to know if two questions are duplicate, look at the answers; if they are mostly the same then they likely to be duplicate.
It got grossly misapplied because it became "look at any answer, if one of the answers it the same, then they are duplicate". Note how likeness became overlap and likelyhood became certainty. Two questions where restart might solve the problem became duplicates under that absurd policy. Your example on the other hand I didn't find. I didn't find anyone claiming that two questions are duplicate of one another in different programming languages unless the language is not relevant.
In the same vein that having the same name of functions is a copyright violation. People don't understand that good things are meant to be copied so that consumers have the best product
That's false, the kernel rarely assigned CVEs, now it does assign them liberally. So, the method changed
I remember a comment somewhere, where employees of a company, would open a CVE for a piece that they use in their job, to force an upgrade of said software since normal update request has been denied despite having business reasons to do so. So, the number doesn't matter.
Also, the linux kernel assigns CVE for anything that can be though as a vulnerability:
> Note, due to the layer at which the Linux kernel is in a system, almost any bug might be exploitable to compromise the security of the kernel, but the possibility of exploitation is often not evident when the bug is fixed. Because of this, the CVE assignment team is overly cautious and assign CVE numbers to any bugfix that they identify. This explains the seemingly large number of CVEs that are issued by the Linux kernel team
In other words, the number is fake
Courts do take in consideration intention. The law however does not. And the law here doesn't exists
Yeah, and Stack Overflow users are really angry that they don't do it, in other words, making their carelessness everyone else problem.
Yeah... usages of TLA+ within the realm of LLM is kinda newish, wouldn't you agree?
That's not... competitive market. A competitive market in this case would mean that no matter what, the pay is equivalent on both sectors. It's not. Public service pays less and has the same politics annoyances of the private one. If it was competitive it would pay equivalently
That still requires trust stores to be distributed to the clients and some clients don't need that baggage on the dns. Also, dns is by default insecure, dnssec is a configuration nightmare
It’s funny because "no one with talent wants to work there" would explain an organization failure only if there were a competitive job market, one where talented people can freely choose their employer. There isn't, so the actual description is that the British Civil Service, due to having crappy managers and policies, can't do anything useful.
I'm pretty sure that if we ask the operative layer what should the policies be, they wouldn't even pursue this goal