mejutoco

27 ms·

1. 541.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   Strict/constrained things are generally less appealing. That does not mean they are not the right approach. I dont agree with the popularity contest approach though. Many languages are in use for different things without the need for a
2. 542.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   Being a notary or any other public service or semi-public (depending on the country) seems like a safe and easy job once you are in.
3. 543.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   I am answering to this quote of yours > All ML gimmicks are nice to show off at events, pub gatherings and in reviews videos with a specific example of how it is useful to me outside of the cases you mention. I am merely sharing my exper
4. 544.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   I agree, but it solves the problem. You are talking about how it should be. I am talking about why these local AI features are useful to me. On PCs we have Windows with candy crush ads, so I can indeed imagine.
5. 545.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   If I want to copy text from an app (often not allowed) I now take a screenshot and copy the ocr text from there. Same with badly coded websites etc. It saves a lot of time, and is always the same workflow.
6. 546.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   Authorities are useful within a context. Appealing to authority is not an argument. At most, it is an heuristic. _Using_ this fallacy in an argument invalidates the argument (or shows it did not exist in the first place)
7. 547.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   I have used the main OS. Linux (plain LTS Ubuntu) has worked way better than anything else, as long as the software was available. With Figma and an iPad I do not need a Mac or Windows anymore. I still have a separate hard disk for Windows
8. 548.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   Thanks for your response. I learned about a few people related to this movement. Fair points.
9. 549.▲
   by mejutoco 3y ago

   This reminds me...many graphic designers knows to have a bad version of a design. What they do not expect is the customer picking that one. It explains some campaigns though
10. 550.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Thanks for your answer. I didn't mean that EA was always the most extreme of "the end justifies the means", but that the same moral questions as "the end justifies the means" apply, and these have been discussed man
11. 551.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    And what evidence can one really collect of how to do the most good? that involves predicting the future. I prefer the doctors approach: "first, do no harm". "The end justifies the means" is a useful concept that has bee
12. 552.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I think EA is at its essence "the end justify the means", but communicated in a less simple way. I do not see what is so interesting or novel about it.
13. 553.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Not arguing either way, but it is conceivable that reading comprehension (which is not stellar in general) can get even worse. Saving time for the same quality would be a positive. Saving time for a different quality might depend on the use
14. 554.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Idk. It looks like Apple is happy to sell you the hardware to do the image recognition etc on your own device and receive the result. They can claim privacy and save on computation.
15. 555.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    We all know it is because of the encodings. But as a test to see if it is a human or a computer it is a good one.
16. 556.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    IBM was once like that too. That is mostly an appeal to authority.
17. 557.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Saying that something exists is not an argument about why something _should_ not exist. But I agree, "should" discussions are rarely the most productive. Shoulda, woulda, coulda, I guess :)
18. 558.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I suspect it got downvoted because of the assumption that the only way to get out and wind down is eating out. You could go for a run or a bike ride, have a picnic with friends, play soccer with friends, skate. etc.
19. 559.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I am happy (good) science does not take the "is obvious" claim as sufficient, and instead focuses on proving things with objective facts. I am not saying these cannot be plain to see in the code, but the best standard IMO is still
20. 560.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I misread Engels as Hegel. Of course it makes more sense now.
21. 561.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    It is also a quote from Stalin.
22. 562.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I think you will like this quote :) "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Ke
23. 563.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Sorry, but that is moving the goalposts. Quick prototyping was mentioned, but now we seem to be talking about some undefined balance between typing and no typing for prototyping. It seems :any solves the problem.
24. 564.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I mostly agree with you. Just wanted to add that in some languages, for example in Typescript, there are ways to say that you do not care about the type for prototyping. For example using :unknown or :any.
25. 565.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I first saw this talk of DSLs with Ruby, where it is/was popular to use missing method and others to build your own "language". I do not mean it in a negative way, but at the time it seemed like calling a utility class DSL wa
26. 566.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I like it, but I think how easy it is to replace is more important than how easy it is to extend. Otherwise it might end like those massive class hierarchies instead of a function. For me, pure functions and enforced types do the trick.
27. 567.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    And even the shortcuts are localized. A Spanish Word installation will use ctrl+g (guardar) instead of ctrl+s (save), for instance.
28. 568.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    When confronted with his actions 2 simpler explanations than "booksmart, but not real life smart" are: - A scammer (unethical, independent of intelligence) - Not smart at all I do not understand how someone see his actions and con
29. 569.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    I don't suggest to "destroy" any company, or to say they are guilty of things without proof. The FT did an impressive investigation of Wirecard, for example. There is a difference between destroying a company and making a cou
30. 570.▲
    by mejutoco 3y ago

    Occam‘s razor suggests simpler explanations than book smart, stupid at common sense. For a person openly opposed to reading books, and proud of it.