epgui

28 ms·

481.
by epgui 3y ago
What makes you think that should not be possible? It's a pretty well accepted fact.
482.
by epgui 3y ago
> If I need multiple sources to explain it to me, then it is not communicating the information effectively is it? Navigating life expecting to understand everything without first having to learn the things is... unreasonable. The burden
483.
by epgui 3y ago
> When it comes to LLMs being fed best to swab the son of commentary I understand all of these words individually, but I do not understand them in that sequence.
484.
by epgui 3y ago
> Aren't they usually in favor of things promoting freedoms Definitely not in a general sense. They place more importance on some freedoms than on others.
485.
by epgui 3y ago
How can you know what OP meant? The best any of us can do is guess.
486.
by epgui 3y ago
Your interpretation was immediately wrong, because the statement doesn't say anything about the prevalence of right-leaning people or left-leaning people. Google the phrase "reality has a left leaning bias" and you will find
487.
by epgui 3y ago
That's nice, and I'm even prepared to accept it as a fact,[1] but it doesn't appear to have any relevance to what I said. --- [1] Given the irrelevance, I don't think it's even worth verifying.
488.
by epgui 3y ago
They do say that reality has a left leaning bias... Personally I find these quadrant visualizations a bit misleading (regardless of where you sit) because the "centre" is not so much a neutral point as it is the centre of the &quo
489.
by epgui 3y ago
I didn't even realize that, because I couldn't find a link to any docs on the website. It looked like a dead end... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
490.
by epgui 3y ago
The point is not lost on me. Certainly tort law, contract law, administrative law, and many other areas of law aren't usually sourced from blackletter law as much as from jurisprudence or other sources of law. I think this very point y
491.
by epgui 3y ago
I understand that, but there is a difference between text similarity and semantic similarity. You claim to have performed semantic clustering, but what I am seeing, and what you are saying in your response to my comment, has less to do with
492.
by epgui 3y ago
I think visualizing it like this is very strange. I am not a legal expert but I have read a lot of law textbooks. Normally, I’d expect blackletter law to form a somewhat sparse, tentacle-like structure. Case law (or “cases” or “jurisprudenc
493.
by epgui 3y ago
I just considered weasyprint and couldn't figure out where to put my credit card or where to go to get started or to see some docs, so that was a very short-lived consideration.
494.
by epgui 3y ago
I mean, it imitates humans. Have you met humans? If you want something real smart, what you need is a Casio calculator.
495.
by epgui 3y ago
There is no basis in your purported belief that quality contributions that follow the rules will get deleted. Wikipedia editors are not out there to suppress women— The fact that this de facto happens is more likely a reflection of systemic
496.
by epgui 3y ago
I understand "oddity" here to mean that it is odd in relation to our intuitive everyday experiences, which feel rather continuous at human scales.
497.
by epgui 3y ago
How is this statistical problem (which I’m prepared to acknowledge) an actual barrier preventing you from improving any given article?
498.
by epgui 3y ago
All of us were always free, and are still free, to contribute to making his wiki page better!
499.
by epgui 3y ago
Probably not "the greatest day", but definitely a very very good day. I think it's too easy to imagine Orwellian scenarios, but I think the real worries are much more subtle than people usually think, and they usually have mo
500.
by epgui 3y ago
> [...] and not after the facts Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , they intentionally only cover topics retroactively, and preferably after the dust has settled. They're intentionally not intending to be many things, including a source
501.
by epgui 3y ago
I completely take your point and agree with you. I’d just like to add a nuance/complication: sometimes it makes perfect sense for a lead to come and insist on the test coverage metric hitting X%. Not because it’s a good idea on its own
502.
by epgui 3y ago
I could not disagree more vehemently.
503.
by epgui 3y ago
It is a distance metric on a projection.
504.
by epgui 3y ago
This specific pesticide might not be used on organic crops, but plenty of other even-less-well-safety-tested "organic pesticides" may be used instead on organic crops. The word "organic" is largely a marketing gimmick. &
505.
by epgui 3y ago
Even if that's true, does it change anything about the point I made?
506.
by epgui 3y ago
I mean it's pretty trivial if you have referential transparency, which is what FP gives you.
507.
by epgui 3y ago
That is absolutely and totally true, but 99.9999% of engineers are probably working on things like web apps or other high-level code. The argument for FP was never that it was perfectly well-suited to every application-- merely that it was
508.
by epgui 3y ago
> it strongly optimizes for readability of experts in most cases which harms readability in general Strongly disagree. In the way you speak of "readability", you're confusing simplicity and familiarity, which are really tw
509.
by epgui 3y ago
> Why is this taken as a given to be a good thing? It is not taken as a given at all. It is an acknowledgment that it makes perfect sense to build on top of centuries of work and theory on well-behaved tools, rather than reinventing the
510.
by epgui 3y ago
What I love about this sort of tool is that it appears to pair so perfectly with functional programming. Are all expressions constructed in this language referentially transparent?

More ›