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/)L
Posts
0
Comments
650
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Only gambling on thermal noise is the real deal /½s

  • risks were calculated

    @

    but I am bad at math

  • Yeah, there are 10 types of people

  • To be honest, I didn't read through, because of all the flourishing and humourous wordy descriptions.

    It feels unbalanced and leaning towards comedy, but jokes were not supposed to become the only reason to read that, were they?

  • Also, create a thousand accounts in advance at random days, never use them and make this comment their only, but when account is not fresh. That way it would look like it's a legitimate reader that was just once so outraged they decided to comment and then shut up forever

  • Until some bots start doing that to look like real persons

  • Edited map does not really create fear or disruption of critical infrastructure, and I'm not sure about panic either

  • I wonder if sometimes people undo false edits thinking that those are correct, thus making the map correct again

  • So, in addition to supporting their conscription, you've decided to speak for them.

    I think, they were writing about people mangling the fuel maps.

    Otherwise I'm not sure what are you getting at, everyone should shut up about the war because on the front line they have better things to do and not on the front like they have no right to talk, is it?

  • To be fair, this is what bothers me more than the supposedly non-existent benefits, because I've seen LLMs being useful as tools, but the impact on environment is not clearly communicated (I'd wager it's because no one wants to admit that it's enormous). For that reason I'm trying to use local LLM instead, and it is more limited in usefulness but that's fine by me as it's not the only tool I have

  • Isn't it already how things are run if you have the right rights unlike the rest of the populace

  • Oh, but that's different, you see

  • I think it's because the article is trying to paint a picture that may not exactly fit the reality. But I didn't read it anyway, this comment thread looks more interesting

  • Yeah, some commit messages are very not good either

  • Largely yes, but also having it squashed requires better commit messages and comments to show what was done for what reason. But yes, bisect is the only reason I'm fine with squashing

  • Because less merge conflicts (we also rebase on top of master each time we commit)

  • If you mean to ask what that means, it's that for development you start a branch and either do everything in one commit, or do everything in several, but each time you git commit --amend so that a history is overwritten and in the end it is only one commit still

  • With rules like that I would expect people to split onto two groups: ones that learn one pattern and repeat it because it's a guaranteed result, and one that tries to find a counterexample to the rule they thought of at first. The fact that pigeons try different patterns kind of makes them more clever in my eyes.

    But it's known that pigeons perform better than humans in Monty Hall problem, so they are really pretty smart when it comes to statistics, it seems

  • And here we are, encouraged by our technical leadership to always have a single commit per branch that is constantly amended. I even think squashing the branch is not too good, but this is a step up from that