dxdm

4 ms·

1.
by dxdm 6d ago
Oh, I don't mind the disagreement, I'm curious to understand why your position is so different from mine, after getting closer to understanding what your position actually is. (I had to do that because there are some implicit pre
2.
by dxdm 6d ago
Here's how I understand your position so far: You think it's okay when actual harm and suffering results from a "battle of the brains" via computers, because one party "outsmarted" the other. Sure, it would &qu
3.
by dxdm 7d ago
You're presenting a false dilemma, there are more options than "all hacking is completely illegal" and "all hacking is a free-for-all". We're in a thread that starts from the notion that it should not be illega
4.
by dxdm 7d ago
> I really don’t understand the urge or need to compare software security with physical security. Both are about preventing harm in many different forms. Software famously has effects in the physical world, that's the reason why a l
5.
by dxdm 7d ago
Since you mentioned it below several responses to this comment: Why do you think this is okay for software, but not okay in the "physical world"? Is it about a perceived lack of consequences of the one vs the other? What if the ha
6.
by dxdm 10d ago
I thought we were talking about how things look, not the skill that goes into making them look like it. These are sufficiently different things. Fashion. Taste. Informed by functional and economical requirements, materials, surroundings, ur
7.
by dxdm 10d ago
Yes, I would like to understand why this is their preference. Aren't you curious? I don't think it's enough to say: these people are experts, so in this issue of style and taste their answer is automatically correct, no more
8.
by dxdm 11d ago
Why, indeed.
9.
by dxdm 11d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes > In Greek mythology, Procrustes [...] was a rogue smith and bandit from Attica who attacked people by stretching them or cutting off their legs, so as to force them to fit t
10.
by dxdm 16d ago
I don't want to stop you from providing your opinion, and looking back, I shouldn't have questioned it the way I did. I didn't consider, after my own experience switching from the time of CVS and then SVN to git, with the sub
11.
by dxdm 16d ago
Well, then I'm sorry. Your issue seems not so much that tools have shortcomings, but rather, that you seem to focus on these shortcomings so much that everything looks like crap. Maybe not in general, but at least in relation to VCSes,
12.
by dxdm 16d ago
I don't think jujutsu is proprietary (unless you want to redefine that term). Source is freely available, and it uses Apache License 2.0. While you're right about the disadvantages of git, pretending that it became ubiquitous beca
13.
by dxdm 21d ago
There's -i for interactive, lets you add, patch and reset (unstage).
14.
by dxdm 26d ago
I agree that requirements need to be kept in check to avoid over engineering. However, I think it's hard to decide for other people far away what their requirements ought to be. So I don't agree that you can call mrb's basic
15.
by dxdm 26d ago
Of course you can call things over engineered, but seem to want to include questioning the requirements, specifically also those of the example we're talking about. Once you start that, you also need to stop somewhere. For example, we
16.
by dxdm 26d ago
Where would you draw the line for a sufficiently simple implementation of sufficiently simple requirements? A door knocker? A door?
17.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Gotta keep up with pitch inflation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch
18.
by dxdm 2mo ago
With pleasure. There was a boy A very strange, enchanted boy They say he wandered very far Very far, over land and sea A little shy and sad of eye But very wise was he. And then one day A magic day he passed my way And while we spoke of man
19.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Love the pedantry here. I'm currently at: no op code does anything, it's all fancy effects in the hardware that can be described in arbitrary detail, which somehow allows me to cause these letters to appear on your screen.
20.
by dxdm 2mo ago
I agree. What I meant to say is that the Wikipedia article tells you upfront where it is going. In TFA, you need to push many little paragraph cards across the screen before you get an idea what you are going to learn.
21.
by dxdm 2mo ago
But Wikipedia tells you in the first paragraph what it's all about. A "Pareto front represents the set of solutions where no solution outperforms any other solution in the set at every objective, and every solution not in the set
22.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Thanks a lot for the link! I appreciate your work to make this topic accessible in an interactive format. Somehow, in this case, it's too much for me. I think the ratio of information to interactivity is too low. It's like I have
23.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Is there a version I can just read as text without having to push every paragraph out of the way with my fingers across an unevenly colored background that shines through? I get that this form of presentation may be great for many people,
24.
by dxdm 2mo ago
There is clearly LLM-prose involved, but it's pretty well done. Here's one example: "The reallocations were real, but they were never the bottleneck." LLMs love this pattern. Whether one put it into this text, or the aut
25.
by dxdm 2mo ago
That's a good point. They're not selling progress, they are claiming to enable progress by selling you (tokens in -> tokens out), making it your responsibility to connect the two. Filling that gap is part of your expertise that
26.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Easy for you to say, but who says they're looking for a way out? It's often easier to find a reason to stay where you are, and easiest to not even need one.
27.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Well, first, we don't have enough context to judge what the "load-bearing seam" was used for in this case ("The key structural point first: the only load-bearing seam is [...]"), so we don't know if it was mean
28.
by dxdm 2mo ago
It's a clunky metaphor, and it's used clumsily: not for the sake of its clunkiness, but by mixing two decent individual parts in an attempt to have them reinforce each other, but ending up with something weaker. It communicates an
29.
by dxdm 2mo ago
As of recently, there is a strong correlation between use of em-dashes and a verbose, bloated style of writing that uses many words to not quite get to multiple repeated points. Not well written, in other words. The combination of both I us
30.
by dxdm 2mo ago
Nothing wrong with browsers using resources to do useful work. I'm just not a fan of bloat that eats resources because they're assumed to always be available. That's what this thread is about, I thought.

More ›