jmull
Age-based bigotry, the most acceptable of bigotries!
It's interesting what is considered acceptable and what isn't.
Knowing that you should do something, doesn't necessarily mean can do it. There's still the question of exactly how.
E.g., diet is heavily influenced by hormones/hormonal cycles and access to quality food choices, which vary significantly between people. The glp1s available now are a big help with the hormonal part of this, but they are not within reach of a large proportion of people.
> To me this is just subconscious denial/defending of their food addiction.
If you have to make up unobservable phenomena to explain plainly visible facts, it's usually a sign to look for a different overall model.
(I realize it doesn't matter to those of you with a rather "lo-res" perspective on things. To put it in a nice way.)
There's an existing concept of and precedent for, "Too big to fail." The wikipedia article gets the idea across [0].
This creates an implied "insurance" program, tilting the risk profile toward being aggressive. Taking a moon shot isn't so scary when you think the government will probably step in if it blows up bad enough.
This fluffy, political statement is a message: don't count on it.
Perhaps it will give investors/executives a few thoughts on preparing to deal with a potential blowup themselves?
They are both good answers, depending on what you're looking for. The first is clear, concise, and correct -- pretty much exactly what you want to read and write code with the $ prefix.
The other one is more interesting in a behind-the-scenes way, and goes through the thinking process behind it.
I can see why the first answer gets the most votes -- that's usually all people want. The other gets votes for the people looking for a somewhat deeper answer and are willing to spend more time reading to get it.
It shouldn't necessarily be about winning the voting... different perspectives are useful.
This includes a lot of remoting into Windows machines (using Jump) where I use the trackpad more, but the touch is still really nice to have.
AI Optimist: AI is going usher in an era of unparalleled productivity and achievement
The reality: RAM/Chip prices are way, way up. The starter iPad mini is $700.
That's what code does.
I think he really wants to be having a debate about whether we ought to be using different coding languages, more based on natural languages, more declarative.
I think the law provides an interesting perspective. It has a technical, formalized language, built out of a natural language. Since laws and contracts can be very high-stakes, the technical/formalized aspects arose out of a need to express hard constraints using a language whose complexities seem to be built more for story-telling.
You can muddy the waters with strawmen and politics, but I doubt you'll convince many people around here.
And who's to say whatever sites are migrated to won't be "sunsetted" in a few decades too?
Seems like a no-brainer to maintain it.
iPhones are aimed at the many millions/billions of technically unsophisticated users who don't care about rooting their phone, but would be very unhappy to get phished out of their life savings.
The word bothering me is: interactable
You've committed to building your app using canvas but realize you actually wanted the DOM. Now you can dig yourself deeper rather than fixing the original mistake!
...all the advantages listed under "The advantages of bringing the DOM to Canvas" apply to using the DOM generally.
Actually, I can see the case for having a primarily canvas-based app that, nevertheless, sprinkles in some DOM. It's the presentation here that rankles.
(Extra points lost for using "intractable" where interactive could be used; intractable isn't an English word while interactive is. Now, since I'm not a purist, interactable can be used as a noun in contexts like game programming that need such a word, since no such English word exists. But using it as an adjective only seems OK when not a native speaker and when not making an announcement. It just reinforces the impression that they don't know what they are doing.)
It's urging/educating people to rely on Facebook as little as possible, since it is not committed to being a neutral platform.
If you support free speech, you should support facebook's right to express their own political views.
But that does not mean you have to support facebook's political views, or the way they exercise them!
When I see comments like this, I despair at how poorly people understand the basic concept of free speech. Hopefully you're just trolling.
You don’t have to have much experience with dogs to know they understand words and very basic sentences around things they care about and understand (food, going for walks, prey, “business”, approval/disapproval).
Perhaps their latest models have ushered in an era of exponentially increasing productivity.
Perhaps they've lost control of their process.
If they've lost control, the system will reach an ugly complexity steady-state of sorts, where any change to improve things will, on average, result the same amount of regression. You'd have to hope the next, new, more capable model would be able wind things back (and not just let you raise the level of complexity, which really just leaves you in an even deeper mess.
To my mind, taming exponential phenomena is hard to do, and requires very careful planning and preparation. I don't see evidence of that here. So my bet is this is an out-of-control mess.
But it will be interesting to find out. (And I think we will find out -- I think it's already too big that they could hide it if it's blowing up or collapses.)
For one, we don’t really know how/why microplastics are bad, or how bad. If they have significant bad effects, the mechanism is slow and subtle, so unlikely to affect dogs (who, very sadly, just don’t live that long).
Second, the incremental increase in microplastics from this device would be very tiny compared to typical exposure estimates.
When you balance the very small risk against a tangible benefit, they answer is clear.
To me, it doesn’t make sense to rate all levels of imperfection the same. Of course Apple isn’t perfect. But that’s not am important question.
Apple’s the only major purveyor of these kinds of devices whose existential business model is not predicated on privacy violations. Hardly a guarantee of good behavior (and we’ll see what happens in the future). But a lot better than the alternatives.
Web components are lower-level than that -- they can be one building block for this (e.g., lit), but don't accomplish it on their own.
Let’s forget about the people who did set up the system, and do control and understand it.
Very reasonable. Very logical and sensible.