linuxftw

19 ms·

451.
by linuxftw 3y ago
If this were true, SAT math scores for girls would be higher than boys. Math is the only portion of the test that can be scored objectively. The reality is, there are systemic biases in every component of education today that favor girls.
452.
by linuxftw 3y ago
In the American south, just about every public place you encounter will have people carrying guns, with a few exceptions. It's just a fact of life, you might as well pack your own.
453.
by linuxftw 3y ago
That's an age appropriate activity. They don't make a children's calculus book.
454.
by linuxftw 3y ago
No. If you have to infantilize something for them, they're not capable of learning it.
455.
by linuxftw 3y ago
We don't need to make everything kid friendly. There were no fun algebra games, you just did the work. You didn't even understand why the work was useful, you just had to do it. When kids have the mental faculties advanced enoug
456.
by linuxftw 3y ago
It's interesting that the new agreement terms don't mention distributing 'source code' only 'software.' And the bit about supporting non-Red Hat software, reads as if, you promise you're not going to use R
457.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Creating additional barriers to rights holders to bring suit can only benefit the entity infringing. Why should the rights holder need to promise anything? Release the software under the rights or face termination of the license as they s
458.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Red Hat always planned to do this. They were huge proponents of the GPL Cooperation Commitment [1], and persuaded lots of gullible developers to irrevocably sign over their rights. 1: https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/
459.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Exactly right, which is why I said it's not a loophole. The loophole is who has legal standing in court. The recipient so far has been found to not have standing. So Red Hat can distribute the software, not even tell you about the G
460.
by linuxftw 3y ago
There's no loophole. If you distribute software covered by the GPL, you have to release the source to any person that you distributed the software to, and you have to release it under the same GPL. The real loophole is enforcement. T
461.
by linuxftw 3y ago
We don't need the government for this. Consumers could refuse to buy proprietary solutions.
462.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Companies literally made this calculus decades ago during the boom years of Moore's law when it came to purchasing computer hardware. > Electric cars are cheaper to operate that gas RIGHT NOW, with less maintenance. My timeline for
463.
by linuxftw 3y ago
I remain skeptical until the products are real and affordable. No reason to buy an electric car now if they'll have potentially double the range in a few years.
464.
by linuxftw 3y ago
copilot is straight trash compared to ChatGPT 4. It's not even a contest.
465.
by linuxftw 3y ago
I concur. It's just like any other tool, it's only as good as the person using it. I just can't understand the resistance of people in this field. I was a naysayer on a number of things like Docker when it first came out b
466.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Sure, it doesn't nail it 100% on the first prompt 100% of the time. Sometimes it takes a few prompts. It's no big deal. If you can't get it to write effective code, either you're working in a very niche area, or you h
467.
by linuxftw 3y ago
It wasn't the data that the study produced, it was the data the study consumed (odometer readings from insurance companies). Obviously, that is independently verifiable. Also, this was only discovered AFTER numerous failed replicatio
468.
by linuxftw 3y ago
I use ChatGPT to write code for work constantly. The quality is quite high, it saves me lots of time, on the order of hours typically. If a company prevents me from using ChatGPT, I will use it clandestinely unless they offer an equivalent
469.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Peer review can't catch lies. It reviews your methodology and whether your findings are supported by your own data. If you outright falsify your data, peer review won't catch that. Replication catches lies. Many studies, even t
470.
by linuxftw 3y ago
There was a lot more interesting work 10+ years ago. All the interesting bits have been commoditized.
471.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Lack of natural resources, meaningful industry moved overseas, and a surplus of labor. As the rest of the world develops, they don't need British loans and engineer knowledge. Over the next 20 years, they'll revert to being a ti
472.
by linuxftw 3y ago
I will go work construction tomorrow if the pay is right. I like being outside. Of course, there's never a labor shortage, only a wage shortage.
473.
by linuxftw 3y ago
With ChatGPT, you can ask it to give you a working example for exactly what you're trying to accomplish. Often, you can get this kind of information from docs themselves, but it might involve reading a lot of text and tinkering. You
474.
by linuxftw 3y ago
You're incorrect on what the GPL 2 and 3 require. You should read them, it's pretty approachable language. Actually enforcing the GPL, that's an entirely different issue. Some jurisdictions have found that only the original
475.
by linuxftw 3y ago
The original linked report is far less biased [1]. It seems the only reason there is demand for iphones right now is the heavy subsidies offered by carriers. I think few people are paying retail for those phones. 1: https://www
476.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Naturalized means you immigrated.
477.
by linuxftw 3y ago
It's standard in the sense that the vast majority of unibody vehicles produced today have a 5k towing limit.
478.
by linuxftw 3y ago
5k on a unibody is standard. I'm just talking about feature claims in general. I think we're going to see Cybertrucks with totally trashed frames if they try to go live with 14k loads.
479.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Has Tesla ever promised something and not delivered, I think that's the real question. Another question is, how often are Teslas totaled for what would be a minor accident in another vehicle? All that twisting and bending force being
480.
by linuxftw 3y ago
Rated by who? Because I don't believe Tesla's claim because it seems absolutely outlandish. They would have been building F150's like this decades ago if it were true.

More ›