fluoridation

5 ms·

91.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
I didn't mean it as a criticism, just a statement of fact. I can't do it either. It's difficult to say what about a writing style is bad beyond vague descriptions.
92.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Nitpick: The word you meant to use is "offend", not "insult". Just because you can't cause offense to a toaster doesn't mean you can't insult it.
93.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>Perhaps between model version releases, frontier labs can harvest the web and ask "What Claudisms do people mention negatively?" but I don't think they do that yet. That won't happen. People can't phrase their o
94.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
It depends on what you need. For example a while ago I scanned and OCR'ed a bunch of receipts to get a timeline of my salary. I only cared about the gross and net figures, and nothing else mattered. Tesseract's output had a bunch
95.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>the fact that it's automatically collected makes it more troubling, not less I don't think so. You can inflate raw data arbitrarily. They could have laid out on a page the decimal byte values of a one minute video clip of you
96.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
I have a button on my mouse set with a macro to autoclick as fast as possible, from my time with Cookie Clicker.
97.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
It's funny that the only failure condition is running out of money, not "this whole branch of research is a deadend", nor "the model began unknowingly ingesting its own output as training data and imploded".
98.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
What I mean is that the file was specified in one unit/resolution and the site expected a different one. Like, "draw a circle of radius 2 at (3, 3)".
99.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
I see I'm not the only one who was severely disappointed this has nothing to do with simulating repetitive strain injuries.
100.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
What does that have to do with how much detail the sensor cells are able to resolve?
101.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
It's equally likely that the unit was implied by other content around the input field and the model didn't make the connection (like "scale: [___] mm"), or perhaps the file format was just wrong and a human placing the o
102.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>The point is that the compiler has to deal with it and has to check if the function is exported or its address is taken. Like I said in a different comment below, these are not obstacles for TCO. The compiler can simply emit a second co
103.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
It's still impossible in the general case, where not all arguments are passable by registers.
104.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
No, I meant the former. Even if those conditions are not met, TCO is not off the table. The compiler can simply generate a second copy of the function specifically for the recursive call.
105.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Extremely specific example is uncompelling.
106.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Do you often find yourself doing mutual recursion between functions crossing compilation units/modules? I'm not going to say it can't happen, I just don't see it as much of a problem.
107.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
That was in response to a specific point that TCO needed callee-cleanup. But nobody cares about TCO in non-recursive call stacks, and nobody does cross-module recursion. Hence my question: if the only situation where anyone would care wheth
108.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Consider what was being discussed originally, though. If h() has fewer arguments than g() and is in a different module (e.g. a static library) from h() such that the calling convention was necessary, how would h() recurse back to g()?
109.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>But if you said that, and [...] I'd be likely to believe you. That wasn't what I asked. I was very deliberate, I asked if it would be more likely to be true. What's under discussion is not your standard of evidence, but w
110.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>In a callee cleanup convention, a tail caller could adjust the stack and jump to an unaware tail callee. You can still do that with a caller-cleanup convention. Suppose you have a convention like * Set up stack * Call * Clean up stack a
111.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Yyyyes... But like I said, TCO cannot make use of the calling convention, because it doesn't involve calling. That means you can't have TCO loops crossing module boundaries (or function pointers for that matter). So we're bac
112.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Functional languages may be designed to support TCO from the ground up, up to supporting it across module boundaries. C is not like that, and calling into an external module necessarily grows the stack.
113.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
If it doesn't control both then TCO is impossible, because the stack will grow with each recursive step, as it's just performing a normal call.
114.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
But the compiler controls both the caller and callee. It doesn't need to respect any calling convention during a TCO. In fact it won't; it'll jump instead of calling.
115.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
You don't seem to be disagreeing with GP, you're just saying that correctness may be practically impossible.
116.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
I can't see why the calling convention could matter. Can you give an example?
117.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
You can look it up, it's in online dictionaries. gochisou: "feast" sama: honorific deshita: past conjugation of "desu", meaning "is"; thus, "was" In other words, "[that] was a feast".
118.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
Why not just measure it by weight then? That's what we do here.
119.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>how silence would be used during an interrogation No, not really. If anything that makes it more ambiguous, since I can imagine several different ways for silence to be used in such a scenario. >or by the main character of an action
120.
by fluoridation 2mo ago
>The very first thing I mention: self-consistency. So if I consistently tell you that that lithium atoms are heavier than carbon atoms, that would make it more likely to be true? >QM scientists reading QM papers and experiment reports

More ›