Public transit clogs up streets
Looks around at what’s mostly the on roads
Looks at the lone bus that gets stuck in traffic with everyone else, carrying around half the people using that stretch of road
Sure…
On demand bus service with basically no reliability feels like they basically don’t exist? That’s just straight up sad. I’m sorry for your loss there.
Love a good commit message. I wish I could say what we perceive as “good” is instead thought to be “normal”, but we aren’t there yet I guess.
If the word “imperative mood” is hard to grasp, this is what I do. I just finish this sentence in less than 50 - 75 words, length depending on consensus.
This commit will …
Add more details in the body if needed.
This sort of style extends to PRs/MRs as well.
This PR/MR will …
I mean, if he can muscle his way through municipal affairs to stop some bike lanes being built, it’ll keep car dependency high enough that there would be sufficient frustrations with congestion for his car-dependent policies to look more appealing, and to also further push people who already don’t support alternative infrastructure further into his base. And to be fair, a lot of Canadians are dependent on cars, and don’t really see an alternative to cars, and it’s likely that he sees those as the base he needs to win and thus cater to. It all looks like part of the wedge politics that he’s playing.
I’ve been referencing that Divio doc since 2021, possibly earlier in 2020. I even linked to the document in early 2022. It’s quite likely that it simply wasn’t crawled by the Web Archive before May this year.
That’s why reviewers should also watch out for comments to ensure their quality. Hence why I said it’s part of a programmer’s job, not some afterthought.
It is kinda sad when voting feels like we’re putting the lesser devil in the office instead of voting to get what’s better for society, but god damn is that important too! Go vote people!
Comments get stale and over time transition from: accurate to outdated, to eventually flat-out lies.
Sounds like some people aren’t doing their work enough then. Code comments are part of the work that a programmer should do, not an afterthought. Who else is gonna update that code if not the programmer? And if a programmer isn’t supposed to update their code and we can just all write clean code that would somehow make us all be better engineers (yeah, I use this title differently from programmers), then why are code comments even a thing?
Self-documenting code is good and all, but so should there be good comments.
Sort of interesting that this documentation system appeared in two different places that don’t seem to reference each other.
Hard disagree that documentation is a waste of time. I think you’re just failing to see and use documentation correctly.
Tech documentation should never:
Documentation can
Writing these out is also good for people who don’t read code or don’t have the time to read code, eg your tech lead, your manager, Tech VP, etc, people who should have some idea of your system or solution, but not necessarily the implementation detail, so that they can do their work more effectively.
There’s also a culture where a project, or a sufficiently complex problem, starts with a tech proposal, which would properly capture the problem and do solution planning. It’s easier and faster to change than a PR, and reviewers can read that for context. In any case, this democratizes knowledge, instead of creating more tribal knowledge.
Another day another tone-deaf crazy talk from Doug Ford.
Can we get this guy out of office already?
(Rant) Seriously, how this useless attack dog brought the Conservatives to its status today is still beyond me. He provides little to no policy plan even today, basically nuke and no pave. Okay, maybe there’s some paving, but it all just seems like paving the way for the rich and for industries we should be moving away from. Our current policies don’t work well for us anymore; we know that. But why does it seem like we’re looking in the direction of the party that seems to offer nothing, possibly worse? I’m scared of our future, and I’m already very afraid of where we are right now.
There’s already a group comprised of these countries from more than 10 years ago now: BRICS. It was somehow pretty irrelevant for many years, but they’ve been actively working to gain allies, many of which are oil-rich countries.
I intended to give an explanation, but since this community is pretty general, i.e. we have people from basically all walks of life here, many with little to no involvement or understanding of the tech industry, so I decided to leave it out cause it would be too much to explain.
rolauten@startrek.website has given us a pretty brief explanation, but I think it can be further simplified, though would require a lot more knowledge build up (i.e. more words). If anyone’s interested, I can try to write a fireplace story, though I can’t say I’m the most qualified person to do so, or give an absolutely accurate story.
Hashicorp’s been around for years; since 2012 actually. Used to be a pretty cool company, looked up by many, like a shining beacon in the darkness. It’s unfortunate where they’ve gone to now.
You are correct. This notion of “size” of sets is called “cardinality”. For two sets to have the same “size” is to have the same cardinality.
The set of natural numbers (whole, counting numbers, starting from either 0 or 1, depending on which field you’re in) and the integers have the same cardinality. They also have the same cardinality as the rational numbers, numbers that can be written as a fraction of integers. However, none of these have the same cardinality as the reals, and the way to prove that is through Cantor’s well-known Diagonal Argument.
Another interesting thing that makes integers and rationals different, despite them having the same cardinality, is that the rationals are “dense” in the reals. What “rationals are dense in the reals” means is that if you take any two real numbers, you can always find a rational number between them. This is, however, not true for integers. Pretty fascinating, since this shows that the intuitive notion of “relative size” actually captures the idea of, in this case, distance, aka a metric. Cardinality is thus defined to remove that notion.
Not sure why artists are brought up here but I guess that’s one of the highly affected groups.
Just to talk about that particular consequence, however, I don’t agree with your take. There are AI trained on works of specific artists, and the end result is that the AI is really good at producing work that’s similar to that artist’s work, effectively creating an alternative to that artist, even if it’s of slightly lesser quality and a lack of depth of the original. While this would likely not affect the artist in the short term, in the long term, new prospects who don’t yet know the artist well enough would likely be unable to tell the difference in quality, and may even go straight to the AI model since that’s distributed cheaply or even free. It may also negatively reflect on the original artist to people who don’t know the artist, as the works from the AI would likely be more abundant, and people not in the know may think that the original artist was in fact just producing their works through AI. It is highly discouraging for artists who have worked hard to hone their craft, only to have people think that their works have little difference or even a mimicry (don’t underestimate misinformation).
There has been many instances where such training was done without the knowledge of the artist. Imagine just waking up one day, and finding that there’s someone or something that can very closely reproduce your works, one’s you’ve taken many years of practice to produce, of which its quality is almost unique to yourself. There’s a blatant lack of respect for the hard work that people put into their craft, one that seemingly belittles their blood and tears, and could even be a mockery of their existence. Some artists don’t have other jobs; their art and craft is their job, and some may have even sacrificed learning the skills needed for other jobs to pursue their passion.
Saying that AI is not intended to replace artists, but to improve accessibility, is like saying ATMs weren’t meant to replace bank tellers. True, there’s much less skill required for bank tellers, and getting cash out of banks is an important process that should be swift with almost no errors, so replacing bank tellers with ATMs is a general good, except for the bank tellers, which then banks can retrain them for other jobs. Since then, the job has virtually gone extinct, and almost nobody would want to become a bank teller, and if anyone would like to, they would need to perform better than ATMs. Artists require great skills and creativity, many of which are not easily trained or obtained. Seeing an automated system produce works that are acceptable by most people would either greatly discourage new artists or perhaps even entirely remove the idea of becoming an artist for most people. It raises the barrier to becoming an artist: not only do you need to stand out, you also need to be good enough such that people can’t just train an AI model on your work to produce results that are highly indistinguishable from yours. How many more years do people need to train to be that good? For those with a job but wish to become an artist, abandoning their job to focus on their craft will likely become a much more difficult choice to make. Also, I don’t doubt this would further rise the prices of commissions due to how much work artists would have to put in, and this would only get worse at a rate that’s much faster than a scenario without AI.
So a line should be drawn somewhere. AI trained on public works or artist-approved works are definitely okay. All other options will likely need further discussion and scrutiny. We’re talking about the possibility of ruining an already perilous career path, whose works are coveted.
They’re literally burning bridges after crossing them huh. Web scraping is illegal? Their fucking search engine was powered by a web scraper.
WEI is plain anti-competition to me now. Most, if not all, of their stated reasons are now just facade to me.
Fuck Google. I know this isn’t constructive or helpful, but fuck em.
They do, but it doesn’t make the US less responsible for climate. If anything, the US seems to be right behind in a good number of rankings, so not great at all. The article itself mentions it too.
The article here highlights a different problem though. As they wrote, China may be a top polluter, but they’re investing in green and clean energy sectors and is already known to be fully dominating EVs and solar. It’s in their interest to do so not just for profits, but also for energy independence, which would reduce a leverage the world has over it, it would be easier for them to further their global agenda. The US, having to fight Big Oil all the way, is dragging its feet, and by electing Trump, they’re essentially saying “fuck the climate and green tech”, so it’s essentially letting China take the whole stage, if they’re not already hogging it.
If Trump does pull out of all green initiatives, which we all know he’s very likely to do, China will take the opportunity to have free reign at growing its soft power over all the world through its dominance in green energy and tech, displacing the current, already weakening soft power held by the US. And China absolutely knows how to wield their powers; we’ve seen this in their handling of various projects they’ve invested in many countries across the world: South America, South Africa, South East Asia (yeah yeah, “Global South”, sure).