bena

42 ms·

691.
by bena 3y ago
Time doesn't work like that. Ten people wasting 6 minutes doesn't necessarily waste an hour. No one is curing cancer with the time "saved" from loading GTA Online. More likely than not, they're playing GTA Online 6
692.
by bena 3y ago
Having nothing to do could also mean that the original developers are doing an excellent job. It's probably those sort of reactions that got Jobs booted from Apple the first time. This is kind of like hiring someone who won the lottery
693.
by bena 3y ago
And what is that guy going to do the rest of the time? I'm sorry, no company is going to pay someone only to arbitrarily profile their software looking for potential bottlenecks to remove. The only reason this story is notable is that
694.
by bena 3y ago
Giving one person an extra day is very different from giving 8640 people an extra 10 seconds. Even if you give them an extra 10 seconds every day. You would need to give them an extra 10 seconds several times throughout the day. Time doesn&
695.
by bena 3y ago
Because, and I'll say this in the spirit of your recommendations, that's fucking stupid. The problem was sscanf calling strlen. You're going to fire your management and development team because one dev used sscanf where it&#x
696.
by bena 3y ago
But it’s the “I am very intelligent” guy in every panel. The comic itself implies the first panel and final panel are the same criticism. And if you point out any hypocrisy in a person’s action, someone will trot this out as if we can nev
697.
by bena 3y ago
I low key hate that comic. It makes a false equivalency. Recognizing a car could be safer isn't contradicted by owning one. If anything, ownership should give you more insight into the material problems of the item in question. Likewis
698.
by bena 3y ago
I've done something similar. You're essentially doing A/B comparisons across the entire set. It looks like you have it so you're basically setting where "B" is before moving on to the next item. This isn't
699.
by bena 3y ago
Yes, the people who say "Lego" is the "correct" plural are also wrong according to the document they cite for that opinion. The Lego Group's material says that you are never to use Lego as a noun. It's always &
700.
by bena 3y ago
Your personal opinion on the matter has little weight here. It doesn't matter what you think you're paying for or should be paying for, the fact of the matter is that you're paying for the effort people put in bringing that
701.
by bena 3y ago
You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content. And as long as you had the opportunity to experience the content, you’ve gotten what you paid for. I don’t see “I don’t like it” as a valid reason for a refund
702.
by bena 3y ago
It's not a falsehood. It allows for a lot of bad stuff. Like the following function Thing1() begin do important things if condition goto thisIsBad end if do more important things end funct
703.
by bena 3y ago
You're right, it is not a given. Progress only looks like a straight shot in hindsight. Yes, we can take any invention today and trace every step back to the previous to make a single unbroken chain to the invention of the wheel. But f
704.
by bena 3y ago
https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/ai-mass-spying-internet... The original article referenced by this article
705.
by bena 3y ago
So they were stolen with a dodgy story. I don't see how the exact details about this particular bit of British robbery makes the overall state of the British collection "just false".
706.
by bena 3y ago
They were looted. Full stop. The British Empire acquired them through conquest, much like most of the contents of the British Museum. I think I'd have less of a problem with it if they just kind of owned it. Rather than pretend there&#
707.
by bena 3y ago
Exactly. It kinda, sorta is close to one and there's no ordinance. Not too long ago, they yanked a V-22 Osprey set because of their "no military vehicles" policy.
708.
by bena 3y ago
No, but building sets does have other benefits. There's some zen to the act, like model or puzzle building. But you can also observe and learn techniques to add to your own builds. Knowing all the ways Bionicles are put together can he
709.
by bena 3y ago
Some of that is due to reasons they cannot say. They've developed a policy of "no current IP currently produced by the Lego Group". So even if a set gets past the 10,000 mark, if it's a minifig scale Death Star, it'
710.
by bena 3y ago
This is from the Ideas line where they take fan submissions and turn them into sets. Complain about what you perceive to be a change in direction, but unless you were buying older sets, you are part of the reason for that change
711.
by bena 3y ago
Not an inch of land on this planet isn't soaked with the blood of conquerors and the conquered alike.
712.
by bena 3y ago
Basically a system cannot be accountable to only itself. There must be an outside entity that can hold the system accountable. However, even if you have two systems accountable to each other, once they realize that there's no third par
713.
by bena 3y ago
That's true of a lot of things. You really can't allow a system to police itself. Once you allow that, you've essentially given them carte blanche to run a fiefdom.
714.
by bena 3y ago
You see how that's worse, right? The original argument put forth was that "an inherently unreliable tool cannot gauge its own reliability". Someone responded that humans fit that description as well. I said we don't. We
715.
by bena 3y ago
A wide range of people can build things. We trust only a few to build jets and skyscrapers, etc. I think much the same will happen with regards to programming. Sure, most people will be able to bust out a simple script to do X. But if you w
716.
by bena 3y ago
Yes, not all humans at all tasks all the time. And some things are important enough to implement checks regardless. However, there's a lot we can just throw humans at and trust that the thing will get complete and be correct. And even
717.
by bena 3y ago
They do not. A human can verify its own reliability.
718.
by bena 3y ago
I think it's just commitment to the process at this point. The hard bit isn't the process per se, it's executing the process when it would otherwise be easier not to.
719.
by bena 3y ago
Most philosophies come to this realization. Buddhism and Stoicism kind of center this whole ethos: If you can't do anything about it, you don't have to worry about it. Same thing is going on here. Munger is saying essentially that
720.
by bena 3y ago
That is radically different from a innerspring mattress. But even outside of futon mattresses, prior to the 19th century, mattresses were essentially just thicker futon mattresses. Heavy, prone to sagging, breeding ground for all sorts of

More ›