By mistake. Thanks for notifying me.

Actually, CSS is Turing complete, ever since you could do math in it.

I program JavaScript for a living. I’ve noticed how I’ve become blind to my language’s idiosyncracies, but I still believe it isn’t super bad. Especially with all the new shiny features that were piled on ever since 2018-ish (I think).

It is definitely nowhere near as bad as C++. And I’m only 6 minutes into the video.

To nitpick for nitpicking’s sake: You can make Ctrl+Click work in JS.

I would like my parentheses to look normal, thank you.

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with the foreign policy of U.S. president Richard Nixon and his administration, who tried to make the leaders of hostile communist bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

Free Speech, baybeee.

And yes, spending money counts as speaking.

I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!

They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.

Suppose the average person p₀ has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p₀’s acquaintances (call one of them p₁) also has n acquaintances, leading p₀ with n² acquaintances of the second degree.

However, in a social network, many of p₁’s acquaintances are shared between p₀ and p₁. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p₁’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p₀. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p₁’s acquaintances is p₀ themselves.

This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n²⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.

To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n²⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [100² ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.

So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.

I wonder how many AI-relationships it actually takes to get 20% of a network to know one of them.

I found that I do my morning exercise way more reliably than my afterwork exercise. I try to get 30 minutes in each session.

The biggest game changer, however, was not working 8 hours a day anymore. It also helps to have a boss who’s fine with delays, so you can extend the morning session if you feel like it.

I think I would’ve no—

Oh my!

The browser can never know what information is needed for a certain use case. So it needs to be permissive in order to not break valid uses.

For instance, your list does not include the things a user clicks on the website. But that’s exactly the info I needed to log recently. A user was complaining that dropdowns would close automatically. We quickly reached the assumption that something was sending two click events. In order to prove that, I started logging the users’ clicks. If there were two in the same millisecond, then it’s definitely not a bug but a hardware (or driver or OS or whatever) issue.

On the contrary, websites are incredibly sandboxed. It’s damn near impossible to find out anything about the computer. Off the top of my head: Want to know where the file lives that the user just picked? Sure, it’s C:\fakepath\filename. Wanna check the color of a link to see if the user has visited the site before? No need to check. The answer will be ‘false’. Always.

First comment from the link:

Every time you open LinkedIn in a Chrome-based browser, LinkedIn’s JavaScript executes a silent scan of your installed browser extensions. The scan probes for thousands of specific extensions by ID, collects the results, encrypts them, and transmits them to LinkedIn’s servers.

That is very different from “searches their computer for installed software”

As Philipp Dettmer puts it: “Scar tissue is bad for anyone who likes to breathe.”

“This isn’t a bazaar. We don’t haggle over deadlines. We professionally estimate them.”

So what? If you weren’t consulted when the deadline was set, it’s not your problem. Have some balls and rip your bosses a new one when they pull bullshit like this. “That deadline was unattainable when it was set. Had our team been consulted, we could’ve worked on a solution. But since sales went over our heads, this is their mess to clean up.”

Can a file really be split efficiently? And is reading from multiple files on the same disk really faster than scanning a single file from top to bottom?