They’re doing it for control and to remove the anonymity of online accounts. The leaks are just the cost of doing business to them. Discord might not be saving every ID and associating it to the account name/etc, but the NSA/etc definitely is.
Is it stupid to adopt an innocuous name at a time when governments are cracking down on all sorts of things and trying to be faschie again?
“Revolt” doesn’t exactly say, “don’t ‘investigate’ me government, I promise there’s nothing suspicious.”
Not all advertising is equal. Yes, increasing awareness pays off.
That doesn’t mean your product putting a one minute ad up on YouTube that gets pasted in front of a 10 second cat video will have a positive response.
Definitely wrong, although I do not have a collegiate off-hand understanding of biology to really fully decribe it.
But it comes down to what does a “cell” mean in biology? Even your case in point specifies an object with many cells in it.
Cell membranes don’t use simple diffusion to transport chemicals across. That’s the entire point of a “cell”. It’s a defined region that at least attempts to control its own various chemical balances. Cells do have many gates that allow many molecules across, unfortunately including many viruses and prions. Unfortuntely, cell walls are also not impervious to truly toxic chemicals, either, so a “cell wall” still can absolutely break down with minimal effort with the right chemicals. They do attempt to control their own balances though, including basic ionic content. That’s the whole point. The attempt.
I really have to ask… Why do you think humans aren’t so big on the scale of life? Your perspective really come across as human-centric. Not “bad” by itself, but still wholly incompatible with reality.
The thing that does change in relation to diffusion at scale is the necessity of circulatory and respertory systems, which is a massive order of magnitude or few increase in complexity than cells.
Try literally trillions. Billions is literally several orders of magnitude less than reality.
Again, most people literally cannot fathom the scales. Not as an insult, but to point out the literal scale. (god I’m such a millenial with all those ‘literals’, but it’s true…)
The result in the end should be an organized series of events, a process, that takes or produces data. The data can be anything from a single number in a calculator, to a text message, to your entire social profile. The process can be anything from basic math, to advanced math (i.e. machine learning, rendering, cryptography, etc), to performing simple operations on that data like shuffling that data somewhere else.
These processes are stacked on top of each other and utilized with basic logic (if, else, loops, scope, etc) and combined together with a myriad of programming patterns and algorithms, to produce higher and higher orders of complexity, that eventually solve a real-world problem.
The result is an ever increasing complexity of useful tools and processes that can either solve specific problems directly or at least provide discovery for other useful tools and processes that might.
It’s translating higher order problems from something understandable at the task level all the way down until a piece of specialized rock that only understands on and off can eventually spit out a meaningful result.
ok ok electrical engineers get the claim for the last sentence, and plenty of the real-world complexity, but hopefully it illustrates my point that ‘nothing’ is … just wrong. We cannot discount the absolute importance of abstract things. Everything from “imaginary” numbers to completely abstract things like philosophy have real- world consequences. If programming produces nothing, then MOST jobs that aren’t manual labor produce nothing.
The new Naked Gun, actually. The idea falls in to the same FUCK NO camp as every other god damn nostalgia grab from Hollywood in recent years. The plot is stupid, even compared to some of the old Leslie Nielsen movies that worked the plot developments in to jokes a bit better and naturally had more of their own humor than references … buuuuut, the execution still had me straight up laughing out loud at quite a lot of it.
Nah. You are assuming a red blood cell is a common size. It’d be like aliens coming to Earth, seeing Humans, and assuming life’s average scale is that of a human on this planet.
There is a MASSIVE scale of difference between cells of different animals. Some cells can be seen with the naked eye. That doesn’t magically mean other animal cells have to also be large.
There are entire living organisms that are smaller than Titin. Several species of eukaryotes are smaller than Titin, and they’re single celled orgsnisms by definition. A single celled organism smaller than a human blood cell by an order of magnitude.
That says nothing of prokaryotes, which are also celled organisms that are multiple orders of magnitude smaller still.
Again, it’s amazing only because you assume humans aren’t fucking insanely huge. An understandable perspective for sure, but a wrong perspective none the less.
Again, it is amazing … but because we cannot fathom how big it still is.
I’d give you a Vulkan, “neat, curious even, but not mind blowing”, as to what I mean a truly aware response would be.
It’s neat, but if you’re aware of the developmental stages of even just human babies, it’s really not surprising nor unique as to how small something with such differentiated parts is.
So they’re more of just skill sets (lol obviously).
I guess my mental dissonance came from you saying “it’s a class, not a job …”, when naturally, skill sets are critically important to jobs! I guess a bit of a Venn diagram type confusion. lol Saying “not” about overlapping circles can get interesting with interpretations.
Wouldn’t the allegory for class be job? Or maybe career?
IMO, this kind of amazement mostly points to humans not really unserstanding how tiny the building blocks of reality are. Even the “massive” protein molecules your body uses with hundreds of thousands of atoms in them, tens of thousands of amino acid chains, can fit many on the tip of a sewing needle.
Titin has over 30,000 amino acids in it, and barely gets over 1um in length. That’s barely wider than a sharp razor blade’s edge, and they’re orders of magnitude sharper than most knives.
The scale of the world is crazy, and we are already giants in it.
SAD, dangerous, and expensive
Unit tests have never been fun to me beyond the satisfaction of having good coverage. I mean good coverage that exercizes and asserts behavior, not just line/branch coverage!
Maaaybe the closest I’ve come to TDD was in JavaScript, not even TypeScript. Something about strict languages needing to be described a bit more explicitly seems to make code more tightly coupled in the general sense. Somehow, even beyond the literal code changes necessary. On one hand, that’s great because it’s harder to dig your own pits to fall in (see every reason TypeScript is even popular or ‘necessary’), but on the other, code definitely ends up less… portable? On a version to version change level within the same product, even.
In order to “properly” do TDD, I feel like I should only have to minimally tweak the tests once they’re defined, or else it’s not really “driving” the development. It kinda’ always ended up that I’d write the tests in tandem, which just doubled or worse the amount of work when an edge case or implementation detail popped up that wasn’t already factored in. Then I’d have to address the functional issue and then go fix/add a test(s) for it. The process just ended up being slower than finishing the impl first, and THEN writing the actual tests, because the little tweaks along the way simply have less code to cascade in to.
It’s really task-dependent on whether it pays off, IMO. If it’s new code/functionality, it really takes well broken down issues so you’re not writing multiple classes/features/concerns at once in order for TDD to feel remotely worth it. Which then has tradeoffs with extra task grooming time anyways. If it’s existing code you have to enhance or fix a bug of? TDD can pay off in droves when the tests keep you from breaking other things or missing side effects, and makes it very clear when you’re done with the task at hand to reduce the desire to refactor ugly code and whatnot. lol
IMO, how much trouble it is, is more about how testable the code is in general and whether you already have good test coverage, more than having tests defined first.
Not sure where writing tests fits on the problem solving spectrum. At least it helps as described for updates and bug fixes: you don’t have to focus on or check on nearly as much stuff to get a task done well. Writing new stuff, it’s always been more about how well structured and testable the design is than having the tests implemented first.
I suspect it ultimately comes down to the application’s complexity over all. When tasks and code can stay simple, like with proper microservices arch or similar simplifying practices, I suspect it could be easy enough to TDD “properly” in any language and maybe even enjoy it. Sadly, I haven’t had the pleasure of working on a clean project like that outside of pet projects where I’m too inconsistent on my work ethic to judge it. lol
Ohh executing examples and whatnot in the comments/docs is a good idea. I know a few frameworks/doc tools try that at least on a component level, but of course when you involve whole extra tools, it’s sometimes a big learning curve cost even if the boilerplate/setup is trivial. That would be neat to have functional comment examples and formal unit tests at a language level.
I think I tend to agree on bad comments. There has definitely been a few memorable occasions where I’ve axed multiple paragraphs of comments simply because they were old and a touch nonsensical after years of updates.
Yea I cheated a bit by bringing in API documentation, but then in my defense a lot of that I also write, or at least write the formal comments that end up compiled in to those docs. lol It’s also still a bit true when digging in to libraries to contribute, though. If the inline comments suck, most will probably not contribute unless it really legible code. lol
To me, there is almost always something worth documenting about a function, unless it’s boilerplate or just obvious data handling, of course. Though even then, if it’s at an app or library boundary, there is almost certainly some ‘why’ and limitations/etc to describe. After all, even basic CRUD at an API/app boundary will have multiple known modes of failure that have to be described somewhere.
That’s why it’s even more important to realize the machine has no intent. Its actions are solely the result of its creator’s actions in creating it.
I point out anthropomorphization so much because not only will it innoculate people against the advertising for it that WILL anthroporphize it, but when it fucks up, the appropriate people will be punished.
This isn’t a thinking machine going postal. It’s a dangerous product being pushed out with little regard for consequences.
Selling dangerous products used to mean something before billionaires bought the government…
It DOES matter. Directly. Fully.
If people think that the unthinking “AI” actually has autonomy, they will be less likely to hold the people responsible to account.
Why do you not understand that? It is a critical fact of the matter that modern day “AI” does not think nor want, because then responsibility of its actions should then rightfully fall on to who set up the Rube Goldberg machine with machetes on it.
This is not a machine going postal. It’s a dangerous product they’ve been allowed to sell.
We’re trying to impress on you the importance of culpability. If it thinks for itself, then it becomes a defective product. If it doesn’t, it’s a dangerous product.
It’s the difference between someone selling a car that happens to break down easily, and one where the brake lines randomly fall off because they fucked up the design and didn’t want to spend the money to do it right… It’s the difference between accidents and neglegence. This “AI” shit? Pure greed-fed neglegence.
The wording in the article is on purpose. They want you to think it doesn’t matter while they’re anthropomorphizing it, FFS. They want you to blame the bot, not the guy who made the obviously dangerous bot and then sold it to the world for billions.
Nowhere at all anywhere did I ever say AI is totally not a problem.
Maybe you should be less worried about reading between the lines and more worried about assuming what people didn’t say?
The bot didn’t want anything. It didn’t try to murder anyone. At all. What happened was, rich fucks with unchecked power are allowed to release dangerous, unethical products based on nothing but hype and vapid promises.
The only thing technology related is the involvment of AI, and it’s all BS and stupid. The AI DOES NOT WANT. The AI is not the one in control.
Without intent from the machine, this is EXACTLY THE SAME situation as every other time greedy capitalists pushed unsafe products.
Is the 9000000th time capitalists directly harmed society and those in it the time when humanity FINALLY learns to not let horrible shitheads run free over the world based on lies of promises!? Stay tuned to find out!!
Yea he sounds like he wants to be contrarian on TDD if he’s thinking that equals no design. lol
IMO, thinks like factory constructors are just typical over-engineering things. I’ve yet to meet a programmer (that actually became one as a career) that learns a new pattern and doesn’t implement it somewhere it doesn’t need to be. (hell, I’d say that’s the entirety of the existence of blockchain and NFTs… outside of the money-grubbers/launderers, of course)
Why do you think TDD is so bad in Java and what makes it so easy in Ruby? My experience is mostly from Java, and there, TDD seems easy enough for a strongly typed language? At least when leveraging modern libraries/frameworks and coding practices so the pieces are actually accessible. I’m sure doing TDD with raw Java would suck ass for the patterns that don’t jive with IOC-adjacent design. lol
Not just investors. Capitalists in general. The stock market just makes it much easier for capitalists to pretend that profit at any expense is wise.