Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CA
Posts
2
Comments
429
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Blasphemy! And also I'm poor, although I guess if I really wanted to run spyware as my kernel I could pirate it.

    But yeah, I'm getting the sense those are the two games in town, Linux-wise.

  • For your vector issue, I’d go the route of some static examples if possible. Do you have a way to manually work out the answer that your code is trying to achieve?

    Not necessarily. In this scenario I'd imagine it's a series of numbers as opposed to something more human-friendly exactly because there's internal complexity that's important but hard to manually survey, let alone generate. If you've worked with GANs at all, maybe it's a point in a latent space.

    For side effects, that may indicate what I referred to as tightly coupled code. Could you give an example of what you mean by “side effect”?

    I mean it in the standard functional language way, if you're familiar. There's an operation that happens at some step of an algorithm, and it changes a data structure which is referred to or updated at another step. Sometimes you can't really avoid it, because the problem itself has an interconnection like that.

  • First off, thanks for the help!

    Really responsible devs write the unit tests first, because you should know what you’re going to put in and what you’ll get out before you start writing anything.

    I've obviously heard the general concept, but this is actually pretty helpful, now that I'm thinking about it a bit more.

    I've written pretty mathy stuff for the most part, and a function might return an appropriately sized vector containing what looks like the right numbers to the naked eye, but which is actually wrong in some high-dimensional way. Since I haven't even thought of whatever way it's gone wrong, I can't very well test for it. I suppose what I could do is come up with a few properties the correct result should have, unrelated to the actual use of it, and then test them and hope one fails. It might take a lot of extra time, but maybe it's worth it.

    How do you deal with side effects, if what you're doing involves them?

  • The lights turn on, and the cockroaches scatter. Look at that.

    I actually respect people who are racists and open about it, in a way. They're very wrong, and obviously resistant to education on why, but at least they're being true to what they think is right. A lot of these people have to know they're rotten on some level.

  • Interesting. I wonder why they didn't just move it to somewhere with less radiation? And clearly, they have another more trustworthy machine doing the checking somehow. A self-correcting OS would have to parity check it's parity checks somehow, which I'm sure is possible, but would be kind of novel.

    In a really ugly environment, you might have to abandon semiconductors entirely, and go back to vacuum as the magical medium, since it's radiation proof (false vacuum apocalypse aside). You could make a nuvistor integrated "chip" which could do the same stuff; the biggest challenge would be maintaining enough emissions from the tiny and quickly-cooling cathodes.

  • Also in professional env if a company cares about it’s trade secrets it will not rely on 3rd party solutions for all of it’s communications.

    This one is big, and shouldn't just be professional environments. People rely on open spy devices in both environments because they're dumb.

    Element would be a great alternative. Signal would also be decent.

  • So how do you write a good test? It's like you have to account for unknown unknowns, and I don't really have a good theory for doing that.

    Right now, I usually end up writing tests after the code is broken, and most of them pass because they make the same mistakes as my original code.

  • I guess the crisis itself could be and was, but at the time nobody was really talking about the concept of a cold war, and the nuclear threat stayed heightened for decades. Actually, opinions vary on how long a nuclear-power conflict can reliably stay cold, even now.

    AI and nuclear war seem like the main direct threats right now. Climate change will suck and I'll miss coral reefs, but it's not planet killing unless it sets something else more deliberate off. The world looks unstable, but I'm not expecting WWIII this year, and AI isn't going to be very dangerous by 2025 either. The Cuban missile crisis should have ended the world as we know it in the span of a few months. We basically just won a few coin flips in a row; I bet other parallel universes weren't so lucky.

  • It broke in the 90's. History was "over" so they kind of adjusted the scale, and now that shit's real again they keep having to shave off tiny increments closer and closer to midnight.

    We're still way better off than during the Cuban missile crisis, imminent existential risk-wise.