jonahx

24 ms·

421.
by jonahx 2y ago
This is not clickbait. It's well-explained and fairly presents the facts and GH's position. Based on the reaction here, it's clear many people are not aware of these footguns. If anything, the article is a public service.
422.
by jonahx 2y ago
> Should that be part of the warning? It couldn't hurt, but that isn't the misunderstanding I'm worried about. As described in the first example of the article, you can make a fork, commit to it, delete your entire fork ,
423.
by jonahx 2y ago
> So a rec can play head up against a top pro like Phil Ivey and can still win, but that victory would be a function of luck rather than skill. Iterate that spot 100x or 1000x, and the rec doesn’t win very often. The variance in poker is
424.
by jonahx 2y ago
I agree the 3rd is by far the worst of the offenders. But even the first two should have more visibility. For example, by notifying users during deletion of forked repos that data will still be available. The exact UX here is debatable, b
425.
by jonahx 2y ago
Not defending GH here (their position is indefensible imo) but, as the article notes, they document these behaviors clearly and publicly: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-... I don'
426.
by jonahx 2y ago
Surprised at the comments minimizing this. I've used github for a long time, would not have expected these results, and was unnerved by them. I'd recommend reading the article yourself. It does a good job explaining the vulnerabi
427.
by jonahx 2y ago
I know you were probably putting those numbers in as placeholders to illustrate the concept, but worth pointing out the advantage that (even a lot of) skill gives is nowhere close to 100x over weaker players.
428.
by jonahx 2y ago
Appreciated, but still not loading for me fwiw.
429.
by jonahx 2y ago
I agree with your view completely. There is nuance, and there should often be blame at multiple levels. At the same time, there is a basis for the common view, which is that higher ups create the incentive structures from which most thing
430.
by jonahx 2y ago
> The people “whose negligence made this possible” are probably just rank-and-file employees. Careful what you wish for. I know I sure wouldn’t want to be legally liable if my software were vulnerable to something I didn’t know about. Th
431.
by jonahx 2y ago
A million, yes. Unchecked.
432.
by jonahx 2y ago
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
433.
by jonahx 2y ago
An epic battle between good (uncheckers) and evil (checkers)
434.
by jonahx 2y ago
Correct it is a book. The analogy to what's going on now is not "oral evolution" but the OG bowdlerization of Shakespeare by Bowdler himself, and we (rightly) see that today as ridiculous.
435.
by jonahx 2y ago
You're technically correct, ofc, but I feel this is a red herring. Sure, all fairy tales have oral origins, and with Grimm you even various translations over the years. Nevertheless, me, my parents, and their parents were all reading b
436.
by jonahx 2y ago
To be fair, the author notes this and offers an alternative: > One immediate thought is that this is completely superseded by the regular browser scroll bar that’s ever-present at the side of the page. However, the scroll bar could be de
437.
by jonahx 2y ago
> best dx pre-v5 Did something bad happen to dx in svelte in v5?
438.
by jonahx 2y ago
Not a Rust dev so maybe a dumb question, but is this more involved than just running diffs? If so, what needs to be done?
439.
by jonahx 2y ago
Somewhat unrelated, but given that anyone can vote anonymously, how is the TTS-Arena protecting itself against bots or even rings of humans gaming the system?
440.
by jonahx 2y ago
Nice insight. Similarly, dynamic programming solutions that "build up" from the bottom can often be clearer than those "go down" recursively from the top, even though they're equivalent.
441.
by jonahx 2y ago
> I realize the only thing that actually gets the job done is some solid math equations, no questions asked. I don't think it's that as much as... > I still do all the proofs for math subjects in order to know I can derive t
442.
by jonahx 2y ago
Yet in this case there is a proof that it halts, and that proof contains an argument. I was asking for an explanation of the essence of that argument, if simplifying it is possible.
443.
by jonahx 2y ago
Do you know of any (hand-wavy is ok) intuitive explanation for why this machine will halt, beyond the inductive proof's given in your article? Just watching the machine run, I would guess at some kind of infinite behavior. It is rema
444.
by jonahx 2y ago
> Because of Number 16, Main's project took far longer than she had expected. She continued to work into her late 80s, but she "began to look forward to the project's end" Reminded me of The Onion's "Expert
445.
by jonahx 2y ago
Do you save the user data, ie, the searches themselves? What do your TOS guarantee about the use of that data?
446.
by jonahx 2y ago
> I spent hours in meetings to make sure everything is correct. Yet, sometimes it feels that no matter how much effort I put, people will just find ways to misinterpret it. from reply below: > I apologize if I got defensive, it is jus
447.
by jonahx 2y ago
My first thought as well was that all the reporting on this were obvious "submarine articles": https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
448.
by jonahx 2y ago
Premature Abstraction Undoer Machine™
449.
by jonahx 2y ago
Was the automation the more difficult of the two problems? Why did the Polish mathematicians not undertake that step themselves between 1932 and 1939?
450.
by jonahx 2y ago
Not really. Proper OCR in the broadest sense (extracting text from arbitrary pdfs that intermingle tables, images, etc, or from hand written artistic posters) requires a full understanding of semantic intent. You are perhaps imagining more

More ›