brianstrimp
I have come to believe that the main trigger by far is the attitude of society. Of parents, family, friends, tv stars, heck even many (non math) teachers. "I wasn't good at math haha" is such a standard phrase to hear, and parents telling their kids that they don't need to worry if they "don't get it" as if it's some mystical topic that only a few gifted can unlock. Plus the uncool stigma attached to "math nerds", folks who simply have an open mind to try to "get it", turns out that it isn't actually that hard. At least when talking high school math or some basic college classes.
Such an unnecessary flex.
Instead of landing page, login, "just $4/month or $20/year" with a "Show HN" and everybody patting them on the back for a "successful launch".
MITM-ing https google searches with a custom root cert today, man, you don't want to leave your kids any privacy? Do you also have hidden cameras in their bedroom? That's roughly on the same level.
How old are your kids and do they know you are doing this? There surely is a difference between a 5- and a 15-year old. But if they are not at all aware they are constantly being watched like that, man that's some serious breach of trust. This full-on surveillance could damage your kids for life.
I'm so glad this kind of tech hardly existed when I was a kid 30 years ago.
That said, I'm waiting for an "interview assistant" product. It listens in to the conversation and silently provides concise extra information about the mentioned subjects that can be quickly glanced at without having to enter anything. Or does this already exist?
Such a product could be useful for coding to. Like watching me over the shoulder and seeing aha, you are working with so-and-so library, let me show you some key parts of the API in this window, or you are trying to do this-and-that, let me give you some hints. Not as intrusive as current assistants that try to write code for you, just some proactive lookup without having to actively seek out information. Anybody knows a product for that?
The issue with security researchers, as much as I admire them, is that their main focus is on breaking things and then berating people for having done it wrong. Great, but what should they have done instead? Decided which of the 10 existing solutions is the correct one, with 9 being obvious crap if you ask any security researcher? How should the user know? And typically none of the existing solutions matched the use case exactly. Now what?
It's so easy to criticize people left and right. Often justifiably so. But people need to get their shit done and then move on. Isn't that understandable as well?
Over time, when things stabilize, that approach can change. But nvim is still very much a moving target.
Python tries a middle ground. An http server is included, sime crypto libs are as well, but if you need something specialized you can still install alternative modules. That model seems to work well.
1. The message was net-upvoted. Whether there are downvotes in there I can't tell, but the final karma is positive. A similarly spirited message of mine in the same thread was quite well receive as well.
2. I can't see how my message would come across as a jerk? I wrote 2 simple sentences, not using any offensive language, stating a mere fact of statistics. Is that being jerk? And a long-winded berating of a new member of the community isn't?
3. A coin flip is 50%. Anything else is not, once you have a certain sample size. So, this was not. That was my statement. I don't know why you are building a strawman of 5 coin flips. 56% vs 44% is a margin of 12%, as I stated, and with a huge sample size, which they had, that's massive in a space where the returns are deep in "diminishing" territory.
Geofencing is a typical techie "solution" that solves nothing and only brings headache to people.
A "detour"? It's just a lookup in a database to resolve a name to an IP address. Unlikely that any person or any piece of technology in the Bahamas has anything to do with a Swiss person going to that website.
Maybe the article should have clarified that a little better. Now people will actually worry about their data, while none of it will even leave the country, if the server is domestic.
In relative terms, that's obviously and most definitely true.
In absolute terms, that's obviously and most definitely false.
You shouldn't judge your sw eng employees by lines of code either. Those that think the hard stuff often don't have that many lines of code checked in. But it's those people that are the key to your success.
That number itself is not saying much.
Let's say I have an academic article written in Word (yeah, I hear some fields do it like that). I get feedback, change 5 sentences, save the file. Then 20k of the new file differ from the old file. But the change I did was only 30 words, so maybe 200 bytes. Does that mean that Word wrote 99% of that update? Hardly.
Or in C: I write a few functions in which my old-school IDE did the indentation and automatic insertion of closing curly braces. Would I say that the IDE wrote part of the code?
Of course the AI supplied code is more than my two examples, but claiming that some tool wrote 70% "of the code" suggests a linear utility of the code which is just not representing reality very well.
So let's not get too worked up, shall we?
Ironically supported by the folks who argue that having an assault rifle at home is an important right to prevent the government from misusing its power.
At that point, the weights are just the cached output. Which has value since it's costly to produce from code+data.
That's the very definition of it though.