my_hat_stinks @ my_hat_stinks @programming.dev

Posts

3

Comments

294

Joined

2 yr. ago

That reminds me of an issue I had when I was installing Mint. I tried out a live boot first and everything seemed to work except there was no internet connection. Turns out my WiFi card needs a proprietary driver, but no big deal it installed easily enough just from the boot disk. Internet's working, all looks good, so I go ahead and install Mint proper, remove the live boot usb, start the system, and savour that new Minty smell. But hang on, there's no WiFi, I forgot to install the driver! Should be an easy enough fix though, it wasn't hard last time.

So I go to install the driver and the first thing it says is that it needs the boot disk to get the driver. That makes total sense, can't install something you don't have! I plug in the usb again and now it should all be plain sailing, after all it's just installing a driver that worked 20 minutes ago, right? Sadly no, that would be too easy; for some reason now it's missing dependencies! Or something along those lines anyway, I forget exactly. But can't it just install those from the boot disk? Well apparently not, it instead tries to connect to the internet to download them. This obviously fails since I don't have a WiFi connection, which is why I'm installing the driver in the first place. All I get is a popup saying it can't install some stuff because there's no internet connection, fix that to get your internet connection. This is the point where face meets palm. I'm sure there's some fiddly "proper" way to work around that but the thing is I'm incredibly lazy so I'll just take the quick option instead. I plug in my phone and use a tethered connection. I run the install again and it finally goes through, at last the system is ready to use! It's been mostly smooth sailing since then (though I did get annoyed enough at NTFS a couple of months ago that I just reformatted a data drive and wiped a ton of data I probably didn't need).

Tl;dr: I had to tether to my phone for a minute. Traumatising!

There's no need to be a dick about it, just because you know a something doesn't mean everyone else must also know it. I can guarantee there's common terms you aren't familiar with. Especially when you consider that this is marketing jargon with common alternate terms (eg demo reel).

I guess, if you don't like raisins and currants? It's just a fruit pie, I don't really see what's so horrible about that. It'd be more understandable if we were talking about a fly cemetery, a similar pastry with a much more interesting name.

You get gender-neutral names in English-speaking countries too, eg Alex, Jordan, and Dylan. It's just not possible to reliably guess everyone's gender from their name alone.

A traditional recipe were I am is macaroni pie (mac and cheese in hot water pastry), popular enough that when one bakery stopped selling them political leaders here supported petitions to bring them back. There's no such thing as too many carbs!

Personally I don't see that as a good thing. Reddit had a thriving community of active art sharing subrrddits, Lemmy only has a few barely active art coms and instead floods All with ai-generated images.

It's a bit of a non-sequitur though, the context was denying service to an ally not cutting off existing service to Crimea. It's like if someone asked "Have you ever shaken a baby" and you respond "I have never kicked this baby!". Sure, it's good that you haven't kicked a baby, but that's just not the question.

They'll use old comments either way, using an up-to-date dataset means using a dataset already tainted by LLM-generated content. Training a model on its own output is not great.

Incidentally this also makes Lemmy data less valuable, most of Lemmy's popularity came after the rise of LLMs so there's no significant untainted data from before LLMs.

The numbers do matter because the numbers are literally your entire argument. You're arguing building for cars is more effective, you cannot make arguments about effectiveness without numbers. Alternative transport methods can be done with current tech since alternative transport methods literally existed before cars. There are plenty of examples of places that aren't car-centric, and most major car-centric cities weren't originally built around cars. I honestly have no idea how you could have thought that's a remotely reasonable argument? It's utter nonsense.

Even if your massive infrastructure overhaul argument was valid¹, we're literally talking about a hypothetical scenario where you can pump absurd amounts of money into a project.

^{1. It's not, just build other infrastructure instead of more roads. From a strictly capitalist perspective it pays for itself when more space can be used for taxable business instead of the dead weight of parking, and those businesses are more accessible to foot traffic making them more profitable and therefore generating more taxes. Not to mention the maintenance costs.}

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make and the metrics you're using don't really make sense. If one million people are driving with an average commute of 1 hour (personally I find it insane that that's considered "normal" in some places, it should be an upper bound) and switch to a train which saves only 5 minutes each way they'd still save that same 10 minutes. Depending on what you mean by your "cars not driving" metric, that's anywhere between 1 million cars (no more cars driving) and 255k cars (carbon emissions of 1m electric car commuters vs 1m national rail commuters, using this data).

That's not even accounting for the induced demand previously mentioned, making driving more appealing only creates more drivers which makes driving worse.

And all of that is still only considering the traffic itself and not the effect of the infrastructure. Take a satellite shot of any random North American city and chances are a significant portion of it is just places to park a car. It's a bit less common to see a city center dedicate half of its land to bike, bus, or train parking; that land is better used for people or business instead.

If they're genuine friends they'll be receptive when you ask them to pay you fairly.

That won't work because you're approaching the problem from the wrong angle; you're trying to "fix" traffic by encouraging more traffic. If you want to improve car traffic the only possible solution is to make other forms of transport more appealing. It doesn't really matter which form of transport you focus on, it could be trains, busses, bikes, walkability, etc; just as long as you ensure it's as or more efficient than a car for the majority of journeys.

The only way to fix traffic is for there to be less traffic.

That sounds like the gambler's fallacy to me. Time alone wount make an accident more likely, it just means potentially mpre opportunities wheee an accident could occur. Sitting on your sofa today or 10,000 years from now makes no difference if the environment is the same. If you've played the lottery 10 times before you likely won't win if you play again, if you play 100,000 times you still won't win.

You shouldn't be any more anxious about an unexpected accident than you are right now. Just without the worrying about factoring in aging.

I'd say you're very underpaid, I'm making about 50% more than that in a fully remote UK-based mid-level position. You should start looking for a new job, even if it's just as leverage to get paid fairly at your current place.

Okay, but I already addressed that in my last comment. The current king isn't in line for the throne in the same way as people already inside a club aren't in the line for the club. "Next in line after Alice" is the same as "first in line after Alice", you're taking a subset of the line and pointing to the first in that subset.

"Who is next in line?" Would be correct to use in all situations except when asking who is first on line.

This is not true. "Next in line for the throne" for instance refers to the first person in line for the throne, unless you for some reason count the person currently on the throne as also in line. When a cashier tells "Next!" they expect to serve the first person in line, not the person after them. You'd think someone was crazy if they said "I'm next" when there's people before them.

The only scenario I can think of off the top of my head where "next" is not the first person in line is when you add qualifiers to slice the line and refer to the first person after that slice, eg "after Alice, Bob is next in line."

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. You're objectively wrong about “Scottish where I can only usually figure out what word that was”, and the most obvious point against that is that people living here regularly code-switch between Scots and Scottish English and understand both.

The phrase "naw A'm urnae" is undoubtedly Scots and wouldn't make grammatical sense in a word-for-word English translation ("no I'm aren't" or "no I'm are not"), the phrase "dialects used outwith Scotland" is clearly Scottish English. These are very distinctly different, the blurriness I mentioned before is simply from the fact most people speaking Scots also speak Scottish English and code-switch. The fact you seem to be unable to place the line does not mean one does not exist. That's like claiming blue and green are the same because you can't identify the exact crossover where blue becomes green.

Scottish English is the dialect of English spoken in Scotland. Scots is a distinct Anglic language which evolved in Scotland. Being unable to draw the line between them does not make them the same thing, and being able to figure out what a word is definitely doesn't change what language it's part of.

They're not wrong in this case though, Scottish English is the dialect of English spoken in Scotland and the separate Anglic language is known as Scots. The line between the two can be blurry in places, but the terms do specifically refer to the dialect and language respectively.

Not to be confused with Scots Gaelic, an entirely separate Goidelic language spoken in parts of Scotland.

It's not just repeated moves, a draw can be called if the board is in the same state 3 times at all during the game; if you get to the same position 3 times using different moves that still counts, even if it was a white move the first two times and a black move the third.

The game also ends after 50 moves with no captures or pawn moves so you can't play indefinitely by just avoiding those board states. Interestingly those two moves also make it impossible to return to a previous board state (pawns can't move backwards, extra pieces are never added) so if you're enforcing both rules in code you can safely discard previous board states every time you reset the move counter.

It's an open secret that every language and framework is actually terrible in at least some ways, the trick is to just settle for something good enough for the job rather than trying to find something perfect. Usually that means whatever the rest of your team can work with.