winceschwab

Yeah, I noticed that too. Treating a byte as eight tally marks misses the point about the combinatorialnature of place settings.

It's not 100% wrong, because bit shifting and bit packing are real-world applications used in memory all the time.

But these are not the only possible values:

  00000001
  00000010
  00000100
  00001000
  00010000
  00100000
  01000000
  10000000

It's not incorrect to make a decision to limit one's input to those values, but it is incorrect to presume that binary data can only be recorded that way.

Treating those 8 place settings as eight lightbulb circuits that each need an individual test isn't the right mindset for someone performing compiler optimization.

There's this mythical belief that programmers like to tell themselves: "I'm as good at math as I am programming."

It turns out that for many, this idea is far from the truth. The similarities are superficial. The notation is abstract artifice. Math is not programming. Programming is not math.

If you try to take what you know, and instictively use in one context, and try to walk it over to the other, and directly reapply it, you'll surprise yourself at the amount of disappointment experienced.

This confirms most of what I have always suspected to be true, regarding font snobs.

So, effectively, three security questions, like this:

  Favorite color? red

  Favorite band? yes

  First vehicle? car

In reality, they actually reduce complexity, defeating a 12 character password requirement with numbers, uppercase, lowercase and punctuation characters, because the total space of complexity can be possibly less than 9 case-insensitive letters.

This headline was very confusing, since Googling S3, for context that doesn't involve AWS is nearly impossible.

Favorite search result:

https://www.s3integration.com/company/executive-bios/

“The atom bomb works. Fission makes uranium explode.”

See how I didn’t need a citation?

It’s because the facts are not only well-understood, but a river of citation is ready to flow for you, and you would have to dig for verifiable evidence. You could pull up a youtube video, and watch facts unfold, as real world events from the past.

“My pets love me. I know this is true because I see it in them every day.”

You know what? Possible. But you couldn’t offer a citation, if you wanted to. And on top of that, there’s no easy way to discern what goes on inside an animal’s mind, or whether the situation changed and the statement no longer holds up.

“Animal products cause problems for those who consume them.”

Is a broad statement, enough to be useless.

“It’s been found that consuming animal products is associated with this specific problem.”

Better, but says who? And associated does not indicate cause and effect. It doesn’t even indicate a direct relationship.

“Consuming animal products causes this specific problem.”

How? Under what conditions? What’s the mechanism? Who can replicate these results? Why is it not universally applicable, when we can look back on history, and point to people living over 100 years, without encountering the specific problems mentioned?

Actually, if anything, that means everything that happens next matters now more than ever.

Put another way, if we think of 1960's era ICBM technology as entry level autonomous warfare, it's the least effective example of this kind of technology. That alone should give a bit of pause.

That is how potent this technology is, and it should be regarded with no lighter wariness.

It is more precise, more durable, more accurate, and worst of all, requires fewer people per intervention, indicating that it can be operated with a hair trigger, leaving the capacity to react with force more prone to emotional decisions.

If it seems that ordinary guns make it easier for ordinary civilian citizens to lash out at tens of victims, this technology will expand that ability even further. But, put in the hands of unrestrained organizations and institutions, operating with the capacity and constraints of nation-state authority, no less than World War III is on the table.

...as mentioned over here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17886529

It doesn’t really “turn to liquid” but really starts behaving according to fluid dynamics.

Nothing melts or freezes. More to the point, the motion of the macroscopic objects (rocks, sand, dust, powder) being dumped in by conveyor belt create huge piles that slump in odd ways, as piles form, and then settle oddly.

It’s not a true liquid, but rather solid dust mixed with trace amounts of water. Drier than mud, but powder and rock that can shift in a fluid-like way.

It’s like an avalanche or rock slide.

So, this is kind of similar to the whole corn-starch-and-water non-newtonian solid kind of problem, right? A little different, because this isn’t entirely about mixtures, aqueous solutions or colloidal suspensions, but more about the fundamental behavior of large quantities of particulate solid mass.

The title could differentiate between being a total loss at sea, versus sinking while docked in a harbor, at least in terms of statistics and death. Also, how is there not one picture of a listing ship in this article?