FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.
FYI you can self-host GitLab, for example in a Docker container.
You can use more debug outputs (log(…)) to narrow it down. Challenge your assumptions! If necessary, check line by line if all the variables still behave as expected. Or use a debugger if available/familiar.
This takes a few minutes tops and guarantees you to find at which line the actual behaviour diverts from your expectations. Then, you can make a more precise search. But usually the solution is obvious once you have found the precise cause.
I think that’s one of the best use cases for AI in programming; exploring other approaches.
It’s very time-consuming to play out how your codebase would look like if you had decided differently at the beginning of the project. So actually comparing different implementations is very expensive. This incentivizes people to stick to what they know works well. Maybe even more so when they have more experience, which means they really know this works very well, and they know what can go wrong otherwise.
Being able to generate code instantly helps a lot in this regard, although it still has to be checked for errors.
There’s a very naive, but working approach: Ask it how :D
Or pretend it’s a colleague, and discuss the next steps with it.
You can go further and ask it to write a specific snippet for a defined context. But as others already said, the results aren’t always satisfactory. Having a conversation about the topic, on the other hand, is pretty harmless.
Those LLMs are great fools, but I am just paranoid to use it in that manner.
Exquisite typo. I also agree to everything else you said.
You can do that when you control the frontend UI. Then, you can set up the input field for their name, applying input validation.
But I would rather not rely on telling the user, in hopes they understand and comply. If they have ways to do it wrong, they will.
Then null will be returned, as the value of b.
I would not work with or even for someone with such an attitude, not even for money. Ok, do it yourself, bye. Got better places to be.
Yes, I feel you.
And yes, that’s how it is. It’s an insanely complex industry if you really want to understand how things work.
Which you don’t need to get things done.
Which you still can if you really want, if you’re willing to invest the time and energy to study it thoroughly for many years if not decades.
But even then, chances are you’ll be touching libraries, concepts or technologies which you did not study in-depth yet. I think you need to be both aware and tolerant of limited knowledge, and willing to learn continuously.
“Monad” is a shorter term though. “Structured data type” reads almost as bulky as “Curve of constant normal intersection points”.
“For agencies like the FTC to seriously consider action, there has to be harm to customers. But the sneaky formula that mobile developers have pioneered is one where the app itself is free, and the gameplay technically does exist in the application, so where’s the harm? Any rEaSoNaBlE viewer won’t be harmed. They will see and uninstall, and there’s disclosures, so who cares? But these companies aren’t targeting ‘the reasonable customers’, they are targeting the people with addictive personalities who get easily sucked in from a deceptive ad to a predatory product.”
Damn, that’s insane and evil. Like a drug cartel distributing free candies after school, with crystal meth inside. They just weather the storm, well knowing a few “customers” will stick.
I still don’t understand how this can work so well, which apparently it does given the numbers and scale. I have questions:
The obvious solution is to abandon your project not too late; leave on a high note.
I also found it very useful to document every step of my setup procedures, right after I figured out what works. At least the respective CL.
Yes, my favorite comment:
pulls out the power cord for the monitor
Job done!
followed by:
Attacker must have had 5 people on the keyboard.
We also briefly discussed this in Games Master, if only to discover how wide and diverse the range of perspectives are. I feel it misrepresents the subject to talk about a “literal definition”, and to explicitly include “win conditions”. Because there are multiple attempts of a definition, and many do not include win conditions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
One such example definition:
“To play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity.” (Bernard Suits)[14]
You seem to refer to Chris Crawford’s definition, which is in part:
If no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
Explicitly calling SimCity “not a game” is purely academic talk, detached from reality. For everyone else, SimCity is clearly a game. If you want to buy it, you look for games, not toys. I feel definitions are questionable which define something to be not what everybody thinks it is.
Was Minecraft not a game until it included “The End”? I loved playing Minecraft, but I rarely cared about The End, even after it was included. When a player cannot tell the difference between a version of a game which includes a win condition, and a version which does not, how can the existence of that condition be a decisive factor?
If we widen the scope to include any game, not just video games, we can also have a look at popular children’s games like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Association. My theater group loves to play win-free games as a warmup practice.
From my point of view, win conditions are a common characteristic of games, but not necessary or defining. Coming up with a short definition which captures all games and excludes all non-games is surprisingly hard.
Headline:
TERRIBLE THINGS HAPPENED TO MONKEYS AFTER GETTING NEURALINK IMPLANTS, ACCORDING TO VETERINARY RECORDS
What are these terrible things?
Up to a dozen monkeys suffered grisly fates after receiving a Neuralink implant, including brain swelling and partial paralysis.
First is the case of the monkey “Animal 20.” In December 2019, an internal part of the brain implant being inserted into the primate “broke off” during surgery. Later that night, the monkey scratched at the implant site, drawing blood, and yanked on the implant, partially dislodging it. Follow-up surgery discovered that the wound was infected, but that the placement of the implant prevented treatment. The monkey was euthanized the next month.
Before that, a female monkey designated “Animal 15” began to press her head against the ground after receiving the brain implant, pick at the site until it bled, and eventually lost coordination, shivering when personnel entered the room. Scientists discovered she had brain bleeding, and in March 2019, she too was euthanized.
The following year, a primate called “Animal 22” was put down in March 2020 after its brain implant became so loose that the screws attaching it to the skull “could easily be lifted out,” according to a necropsy report.
“The failure of this implant can be considered purely mechanical and not exacerbated by infection,” the necropsy states.
As Wired notes, that statement alone seemingly contradicts Musk’s claims that no monkeys directly died from Neuralink brain implants.
And so would the account of an ex-Neuralink employee, who told Wired that Musk’s claims that the monkeys were already terminally ill are “ridiculous,” even a “straight-up fabrication.”
“We had these monkeys for a year or so before any surgery was performed,” the ex-employee said.
The testimony of an anonymous scientist conducting research at CNPRC seems to corroborate the ex-employee’s allegations.
“These are pretty young monkeys,” they told the magazine. “It’s hard to imagine these monkeys, who were not adults, were terminal for some reason.”
As per the article, it goes like this:
And simultaneously, AI content of poor quality drowns what is left.
In terms of arguments, have you heard about control / alignment problem or x-risk?
Personally there is no way I would ever pay for a service that has ads.
Somehow we got used to it when it comes to sports events, a long time ago.
But yeah, I get you, and fully agree. Seeing no ads is like the major selling point.
if we could just “drain” the existing battery quickly and load in new pre-charged fluid
That would be huge!
For this, of course, it matters a lot how energy dense the battery is. Also for the environmental impact. If I have to exchange three gigatons of liquid for my trip to the grocery store, a rolling coal truck might have the smaller footprint.
It’s not some struggling hospital in a poor country, but an award-winning, Xbox-equipped premium institution in Michigan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.S._Mott_Children’s_Hospital
They obviously do good work and probably could use more money and, sure, I want sick children to have an Xbox, but I’d still feel misled by calling that ‘charity’.
Much like that comment. Can you give a better example, or express why it’s a bad example? That would bring some quality in.