FishFace @ FishFace @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

338

Joined

2 yr. ago

As the existing reply stated, there are only ever finitely many tests.

My issue with TDD is that it pretends to drive the final implementation with tests, but what is really driving the implementation is the monkey at the keyboard thinking, "testing for evenness should be done with the modulo operation," not exhaustive tests.

If you want to know this information, it would be stupid to just read the press release. This information is contained in a privacy policy, which is much more detailed than a press release, which never contains details like this which - let's be honest - most people don't give a shit about.

Persona's privacy policy is here. It does not cover selling your data to reddit or any other company - which means that under EU and California law, doing so is not legal. It does say it will share your data among affiliates such as to "archive" it - but I don't really see the issue with that specifically. The fact that your personal data is sitting in an Amazon S3 bucket is not of itself a problem, except if there is a problem with S3. You're exposed to similar risks if Persona keeps all the data itself.

This is what Test Driven Development looks like

Sounds like after they became an internet sensation they're making so much more money from larger partners that the overhead of supplying small stores is no longer worth it to them.

To be fair to me the attraction of independent shops is stuff that you can't find in any shop in the country.

I don't understand how regex comes into it? Sounds tricky though!

I asked an LLM to write a jq scriptlet for me today. It wasn't even complicated, it just beat working it out/trying to craft the write string to search Stackoverflow for.

It's a shame that you're so quick to express skepticism but so reluctant to do any research of your own, because the facts are a bit embarrassing with the exact same trend in the USA as in the UK.

Driver safety peaks in the 60s, and only moderately worsens after then. The large increase in fatal accidents, by the way, is clearly a result of older drivers being more vulnerable in a crash - because the chart at the bottom doesn't show any such large increase for passengers and others.

I'm interested to know if this changes your mind.

It predates the Victorians by some centuries, in fact!

You can just say "a group of X called a Y" about anything and people on the internet will believe it.

That doesn't affect the ability of older drivers, only the number of them.

In fact, since one reason very old drivers might get more accident prone is because they stop driving as much and lose some of the skills, you would expect that, if older Americans really persist in driving more as they get older (you haven't provided any evidence that they do) they would retain those skills and be less accident prone, not more, so would be safer, and less at need of re-tests, than their UK counterparts.

Focusing on the driving safety of the elderly is a classic example of Saliency Bias. A 20-year old kid wrecking his car is nothing unusual so you don't remember it when thinking about safety. An 80 year old who can't even remember which way to turn the wheel getting in a wreck is unusual and extreme, so it's more salient. Getting stuck behind an elderly driver gives you the impression that they're a bad and hence unsafe driver, which contributes to this.

The Israeli government has declared this comment anti-semitic and offensive.

Unfortunately they weren't able to show how it was false.

The problem with "self-driving" tech punting you into the oncoming lane is that you may have no time to react. Reaction times are non-zero, also when reacting to your own car doing something unexpected.

Fact is that if you want to spend some money, time or political capital on improving road safety, targeting older drivers is not where you should focus your efforts. The fact that it frequently is, is due to ageism.

In the absence of forthcoming data (hint hint), what factors do you think differ between the UK and USA which affect the ability of very old/very young drivers?

This is your regular reminder that it's generally not older people who are high-risk drivers: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/628ce5c7e90e071f68b19dfa/02-image-2.svg

Drivers get safer until about 70, and only get less safe than your average young driver when over 86.

There is a perception that older drivers are an absolute liability on the roads, which I can only assume stems from impatient people who get frustrated when stuck behind an older driver going more slowly than they'd like.

Really, you can't think of any reason to be upset that you're required to take an exam that you then pass?

So they established that language patterns measured by word frequency changed between 2022 and 2024. But did they also analyse frequencies across other 2-year time periods? How much difference is there for a typical word? It looks like they have a per-frequency significance threshold but then analysed all words at once, meaning that random noise would turn up a bunch of "significant" results. Maybe this is addressed in the original paper which is not linked.

They are both harmful, should both be discouraged, and one results in the creation of non-consentual porn of the victim which is provable and should be illegal.

OK, so you only stop short of making a thought crime because you can't prove it. That's... consistent but extremely concerning. You have no business policing what people think about. Freedom of thought is a fundamental right and what goes on inside other people's heads is no-one's business but their own unless they choose otherwise.

This ought to be the trigger to realise that you've got something wrong in this worldview. Even if not, it's my trigger to know that I'm not going to get anywhere, so this will be my last reply. If someone thinks that the only issue with thought crimes is in gathering evidence, our views on morality and the limits of authority are diametrically opposed and there is no point trying, but at least I understand. If it's the thought you really want to control, then you wouldn't have any issue with the person who makes something harmful by accident.

Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

Disturbing that you can't recognise how disturbing this language is. But sure: threaten people with being locked up for unchangeable yet not harmful aspects of their selves, just to make sure that they never seek help to keep from causing harm. Morality aside this can't have any negative consequences.

Everything I have read suggests that paedophiles have no control over their attraction, only over their actions. Here's a thought experiment which I doubt you'll bother trying: could you decide to be attracted to children? I couldn't. It seems to be exactly like a sexual orientation in that respect.

Pedophiles should be forcefully institutionalized

can genuinely think of no other reason why you would be so incapable of empathizing with the victims in this situation.

Your inability to engage with points of view different from your own is problematic. The victims in your narratives are always female, the perpetrators always male. Those who disagree with you are always evil perpetrators. I only say this now that I'm disengaging because there's no point in being drawn on provocative nonsense while trying to sustain a conversation.

Is there a mature filter that you've got turned off? I have never seen anything lewd on All!

Disabling JS worked