Sure, but like the other commenter said, everything turns into heat eventually
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 304
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 2
- Comments
- 304
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
I do love me a good wrap and always go vegan. Usually it's bean with beans and more beans, for a more Mexican like vibe. But sometimes I want something fresh with a bunch of green lettuce like shit, put some cucumbers in there, maybe some fruits and hot sauce to spice it up. My wraps are the envy of anyone as they lay on the plate, looking all nice and tasty.
Then I go and take a bite, the juices go everywhere, along my arm, over the plate and the table, over my shirt. The backside tears out and the insides come flying out and make a huge mess. So I end up taking a knife and fork and eating it that way, much safer than picking it up and taking a huge bite. Still damned tasty tho.
We all misunderstood, Judgement Day didn't happen because the AI got too smart. It happened because it's dumb as fuck and people still put it in charge of everything.
They are trolling, it doesn't matter at all.
A table saw is for lengthwise cuts, for cutting long things like these you need a cut-off saw.
Fun fact, you don't really need to tap soft aluminium like this. You can just drive the bolt straight in with an impact driver. I thought it was sketch at first, having always tapped them beforehand. But my buddy said it's a waste of time, just drive the bolts in right away. So I tried it and he was right, it works perfectly every time. They form perfect threads so you can easily remove and re-add the bolt just like when it was tapped beforehand.
This is normal and by design. They fly super low, way in the upper atmosphere. This means they can't stay up there for more than 3-4 years. It's partly to reduce latency, but more likely it's just a part of the trick to keep SpaceX in business. Starlink is their biggest customer, a lot of the launches are just for Starlink. And they need to keep on launching, otherwise the network will fail. This means Musk can pump the huge pool of investment money from Starlink straight into SpaceX. This keeps them in business to keep funnelling money from taxpayers in the form of NASA grants into SpaceX. Musk then used that SpaceX money to invest in xAI, which was used to absorb a lot of the debt created by buying Twitter.
All just a scam, pumping money around to keep filling their pockets.
we end up with lost history
Oof, I felt this in my soul
There are a couple of things I do agree with in regards to the comments in code. They aren't meant as a replacement for documentation. Documentation is still required to explain more abstract overview kind of stuff, known limitations etc. If your class has 3 pages of text in comments at the top, that would probably be better off in the documentation. When working with large teams there are often people who need to understand what the code can and can't do, how edge cases are handled etc. but can't read actual code. By writing proper documentation, a lot of questions can be avoided and often help coders as well with a better understanding of the system. Writing doc blocks in a matter that can be extracted into a documentation helps a lot as well, but I feel that does provide an easy way out to not write actual documentation. Of course depending on the situation this might not matter or one might not care, it's something that comes up more when working in large teams.
Just like writing code, writing proper comments is a bit of an art. I've very often seen developers be way too verbose, commenting almost every line with the literal thing the next line does. Anyone who can read the code can see what it does. What we can't see is why it does this or why it doesn't do it in some other obvious way. This is something you see a lot with AI generated code, probably because a lot of their training was done on tutorials where every line was explained so people learning can follow along.
This also ties in with keeping comments updated and accurate when changing code. If the comment and the code doesn't match with each other, which one is true? I've in the past worked on legacy codebases where the comments were almost always traps. The code didn't match the comments at all, sometimes obviously so, most times only very subtle. We were always guessing was the implementation meant to be the comment and the difference just a mistake? The codebase was riddled with bugs, so it's likely. Or was the code changed at a later point on purpose and the comments neglected?
Luckily these days we have good tools in regards to source control, with things like feature branches, pull requests with tools that allow for discussion and annotation. That way at least usually the origin of a change is traceable. And code review can be applied before the change is merged, so mistakes like neglecting comments can be caught.
Now I don't agree with the principle of no comments at all. Just because a tool has some issues and limitations doesn't mean it gets banned from our toolbox. But writing actual useful comments is very hard and can be just as hard as writing good code. Comments also aren't a cheat card for writing bad code, the code needs to stand on its own and be enhanced by the comments.
It's one of those things we've been arguing about over my entire 40 year career. I don't think there is a right way. Whatever is best depends on the person, the team, the system etc. And like with many things, there are people who are good and people who suck. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
When I'm doing woodworking and I need to add up some very simple measurements I always use a calculator. I could very easily do it in my head and often automatically do without even thinking about it. However I've learned the hard way it's very easy to make a simple error with even something as simple as 8+7 and chances are you won't find out till later when two parts don't fit together. That's 20 hours down the toilet, just because I didn't double check using the shop calculator.
Would have been funny if it was original. Just randomly wasting peoples time with copy-pasta is not cool.
How does this work, if one person is sharing their screen, does the client get to see? Because it seems more like remote gaming kind of thing? Where the client controls the game/app running on the server?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Outer Wilds has taught me these dudes are larger than my space ship.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I've seen the same or even worse. Pallets of stuff would be received, all wrapped up tight in an ungodly amount of plastic. The pallet would be unwrapped, plastic discarded and the contents scanned to confirm the correct items and number of items were present on the pallet. After each item was scanned and it's serial number recorded, someone would go to validate the items. When validated and found to be correct, the items were again stacked on a pallet and wrapped by another ungodly amount of plastic. The terrible thing was, as I was outside of the distribution chain, I had a view on the bigger picture. Items would often go through several of these places, each doing the exact same. The amounts of plastic each item consumed in the process was huge. But it was necessary, errors were found often, so the steps needed to be done. And the pallets could often get wet, nobody would accept soggy cardboard, so it needed to be wrapped.
The issue is plastic is basically free and extremely good at what it does. A more permanent solution like encasing the goods in some other material, like wood or metal would be more expensive and do a worse job. It's similar to asbestos, where the solution is so good, nothing else can compete. It took a mighty effort and strict laws to mostly abandon asbestos. I fear humanity has lost its will to live and won't have it in us to ban single-use plastic.
Some places did use metal trollies instead of pallets, but the pallets were never really a problem. They were almost always made from sustainable woods, be re-used often, till they just about fell apart. After which they were sent out for recycling, either back into a refurbished pallet, or a stamped recycled wood pallet or other recycled wood product.
Intel actually bought AMD Radeon GPUs for their Hades Canyon (Kaby Lake G) platform. It was a NUC mainboard with a full Intel platform, combined with an AMD Radeon GPU. The Intel CPU and the GPU (including HBM2 memory for the GPU) was all on one package soldered to the mainboard.
I think they did a couple of follow ups on that as well, because it worked very well.
I love that the farmers in this article are complaining about being destroyed by climate change. Which doesn't exist according to Trump and will not be even slightly fixed, but made much worse by his policies. But it doesn't matter, because the trade war the big baby started will put the farmers out of business even faster than climate change ever could.
The levels of stupidity are mind blowing.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Fun fact, the Moon actually has a very low albedo, meaning it's actually not all that reflective. The surface differs a bit, depending on the composition. But overall it's quite close to a dark asphalt.
Our eyes (or more our brains) are very good at high dynamic range and discerning details. That's why a Moon rising may look huge, bright and beautiful. But when you try and take a picture, it looks terrible.
Now this isn't to say the moon isn't actually bright when standing upon it. The Moon is at the same distance more or less to the Sun as the Earth and the lack of atmosphere causes the contrast to be higher. We all know standing outside on a bright day will be pretty damned bright. Even when looking at a darker surface like a road, it can be bright out. Thus we wear sunglasses, as did the astronauts, just integrated into their visors. And our eyes adjust to let in less light, as to not blind us.
And our cameras need to be set differently, to prevent the picture from being blown out. Usually automatically, but with fancy or old cameras manually. The astronauts did the same, making it very hard to estimate how bright the surface actually is. If we were to lock our camera on Earth, taking a picture of the bright Moon in the night sky. Then go to the Moon's surface and take another picture with the same settings, the brightness would be the same. However the picture would be a pretty terrible one.
Humans are terrible at estimating things like brightness, because our eyes and brains adjust to the light level. This is required to make us better at seeing the world and thus surviving, but not as good at being scientific measuring devices. Thus we've used our tools to create actual scientific measuring devices and have mapped the albedo of the Moon. And wouldn't you know it, it's all perfectly consistent, who would have thought?
This is the thing about all these Facebook conspiracies. They are often based on actual real mismatches. Things that make you go: "Hmmm that IS weird!". But then instead of doing the research and finding out the answer (which usually takes about 5 mins of searching), they abuse the confusion to promote their bullshit theories. Sometimes it will be just straight up lies, but sometimes it's actually an interesting thing that lies beneath.
I've also noticed a lot of them can also be easily defeated when they claim stuff, that it only supports their case if it were always the case. Like for example flat earth because no plane routes that travel between certain places on the southern hemisphere. That would be a strong point for them, except 1 min of googling shows there are actually active plane routes that would be impossible on a flat earth. With live tracking available and people posting on social media getting on and off these planes. Or for example the Earth only being 6000 years old because dino bones are plastic in museums. Sure if all dino bones were plastic, that would be a strong point. But in a lot of cases there are a lot of actual bones. Augmented with plastic to show a full skeleton, where only a partial one was dug up. Which is often plainly stated next to the bones, if those idiots could read of course. Or the skull being hung at the top made from plastic, with the real actual skull in a display next to it, so people can look at it closely.
Flat earth is so dumb, it can be disproven in a billion different ways in very little time. I'm not convinced anyone actually believes that crap. They also do basically nothing to disprove the round(ish) Earth model, they just say it's nonsense because they say it is. And invent crazy dumb shit for their own "theories" that aren't even internally consistent.
"What are you doing Cooper? DOCKING" - Interstellar (2014)