Never in the history of time has a minute contained only 59 seconds. Even in Africa. And it has been decided that from 2035 onwards, we need to alter time itself in order to eradicate this irregular minute.

We can only hope that before that time, we get to experience one of these magical short minutes. It may happen yet.

The basic problem is that identifiers can be either types or variables, and without a keyword letting you know what kind of statement you’re dealing with, there’s no way of knowing without a complete identifier table. For example, what does this mean:

foo * bar;

If foo is a type, that is a pointer declaration. But if it’s a variable, that’s a multiplication expression. Here’s another simple one:

foo(bar);

Depending on how foo is defined, that could be a function call or a declaration of a variable bar of type foo, with some meaningless parentheses thrown in.

When you mix things together it gets even more crazy. Check this example from this article:

foo(*bar)();

Is bar a pointer to a function returning foo, or is foo a function that takes a bar and returns a function pointer?

let and fn keywords solve a lot of these ambiguity problems because they let the parser know what kind of statement it’s looking at, so it can know whether identifiers in certain positions refer to types or variables. That makes parsing easier to write and helps give nicer error messages.

Pretty sure the ace is actually scored as part of a five card straight here, skipping the K, 10, 8.

Given what happened to freelancer, I think the only way you should give Chris Roberts your money is if he agrees to lead the project for two years, then quit and hand it over to someone who can actually finish it.

A system I work with gives all keys a string value of “Not_set” when the key is intended to be unset. The team decided to put this in because of a connection with a different, legacy system, whose developers (somehow) could not distinguish between a key being missing or being present but with a null value. So now every team that integrates with this system has to deal with these unset values.

Of course, it’s up to individual developers to never forget to set a key to “Not_Set”. Also, they forgot to standardise capitalisation and such so there are all sorts of variations “NOT_SET”, “Not_set”, “NotSet”, etc. floating around the API responses. Also null is still a possible value you need to handle as well, though what it means is context dependent (usually it means someone fucked up).

A price is usually set to cover the initial costs and to make a reasonable profit not to squeeze how much money you can from people.

There are exceptions, but usually that is absolutely not true. Making as much money as you can is 100% the goal for the vast majority of goods produced, physical or digital.

You can also view it as a strategy to extract more money from richer people, without sacrificing all the poorer customers.

Can you elaborate where your confusion lies? It’s a digital good, there is no marginal cost. So they can pretty much price a game however they want. So pricing is mostly about maximising revenue, i.e. get as many sales as you can at the highest possible price.

A sale is a relatively straightforward strategy where you first sell the game at a high price to all the people who are fine with paying a lot, then you lower the price to sell more copies to the people who weren’t willing to pay the higher price. The result is more total profit. There is a time limit too to create a sense of urgency (“I better buy now so I don’t miss the opportunity”).

Technically just a little bit different from fracking as used in the oil/gas industry, since it doesn’t create new fractures in the rock, it only expands existing ones. However it carries basically the same risks with at most a difference in magnitude.

There’s an interesting case in Switzerland where they tried to drill one over an historically active fault line, without first doing a seismic risk assessment.

I advise everyone to ignore this article and read the actual paper instead.

The gist of it is, they gave the LLM instructions to achieve a certain goal, then let it do tasks that incidentally involved “company communications” that revealed the fake company’s goals were no longer the same as the LLM’s original goal. LLMs then tried various things to still accomplish the original goal.

Basically the thing will try very hard to do what you told it to in the system prompt. Especially when that prompt includes nudges like “nothing else matters.” This kinda makes sense because following the system prompt is what they were trained to do.

Well, you gotta get Gros Michel and wait for it to die, and then hope this one shows up, so the process is kinda more lengthy than the legendaries.

Seems like the pirate environment is especially suited to this type of democracy. Pirate ships operate outside the protections afforded by law, so the only thing really preventing pirate captains from being ousted (or murdered) is the crew’s support.

I guess a CEO would need to maintain shareholder support, but shareholders are generally fairly disconnected from the company’s day to day operations. Most individuals own shares through mutual funds or ETFs, which means they don’t actually have share ownership themselves and can’t vote. All you have is the fund owing you a fiduciary duty to vote in your best interests, which generally translates to whatever makes the most money. So the CEO just needs to keep a few large institutions happy, and possibly some large wealthy individual shareholders that he knows from the rotary club (where the heads of aforementioned institutions are also members)

In other words, the way the financial system is set up systematically deprives the less wealthy from their right to have a say in the operation of the companies they nominally own a part of.

The answer is forever. Even if chat control dies for good there will be some other initiative, just as there were many before this one. Maintaining your rights and freedoms unfortunately requires constant vigilance.

The question what this area represents is left as an exercise to the reader.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/11/ is relevant.

I see the “Republican are always giving up moral superiority to gain an advantage so Democrats should do it too” argument. But at least get something worthwhile for selling your soul. Like, if you’re packing the supreme court you can at least protect abortion rights properly. If you nuke the senate filibuster you can pass some decent healthcare laws, or tax the rich maybe. Pardoning Hunter does nothing for anyone except the Biden family.

Joe is acknowledging that the justice system sucks and powers that be can decide to fuck you over with it any time, but instead of abusing his power to try and fix it, he’s just bailing out his loved ones and then riding off into the sunset, leaving the rest of us to get fucked over. That’s stupid.

I disagree. There is pushing back for political gain, and pushing back for personal gain. Pardoning hunter is certainly an example of Biden abandoning the moral high ground. However it does not advance the cause of the democratic party in any way and only serves Joe Biden and his family personally. This is not a step in the right direction, it gives up moral correctness only to make the political position of the Democrats worse.

That’s true, because you use a 110V based system you have less power available to the kettle. It’s still a lot faster than an electric stove though. Not faster than an induction stove, probably.

The system you are describing is what most countries use. This is basically just an extension of that intended for people who make so little they need extra assistance.

Actually, the US Earned Income Tax Credit is basically a version of negative income tax.

Yeah, “percentage points” is used to refer to a difference between two percentages.

For example, let’s say some company previously held 25% of the market, but grew and is now holding 50% of the market. The company’s market share actually doubled in size, which we could call an increase of 100%. Or, looking at it another way, because they grew from 25% to 50%, you can call it an increase of 25 percentage points.

Rigor in definitions allows us to express a lot of complex things in a compact form. this allows us to treat “Cars” as something different than “Motorcycles” while both a motorized vehicles.

Meh. There’s plenty of room in the gray zone between “car” and “motorcycle” where things like this or this can exist. The botanical world has worked very hard to create rigorous definitions of fruits and vegetables only to be completely ignored by cooks. The culinary world in general has done just fine for centuries without rigorously specifying whether taco’s are sandwiches and cereal is a soup.

As long as it is generally understood what people mean by a word when they use it everything will be mostly fine. REST is an understood term, whether the inventor of the term meant something else by it is immaterial.