I'm not sure why you mention consistency. The cable explicitly says it's a) for the decorum and b) anti dei. That's literally the same reason for the music restrictions - that's why I'm bringing it up.
Popping up dialogs in the middle of watching a movie sounds like a hidden manufacturing defect. That should be enough to get your money back on returning it to the shop (assuming your country has anything resembling consumer protection laws).
The ad is hilariously bad but McDonald’s has done many terrible ads over the years where “creatives” were involved eg the infamous random red couch ad.
> Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious.
He did prefix it with "I think", highlighting that "this is my opinion / my interpretation", not that he is issuing a ruling as a judge in an international court.
In distributed systems, at least we have the variables, functions, pods, log traces, spans etc some pre defined structure, and some level of determinism. I would say Causality is still not fully explored territory when it comes to human brain.
When I think of human brain or may be to some extent LLMs, it's difficult to understand what is invisible. For distributed systems we will build tools, there is ongoing research in LLM Observability, but I wonder what about human brain
So you're saying they could just make the driver compliant without advertising compliance under the hdmi logo? similar to how e.g. oneplus shipped phones without advertising their higher IPX rating because certification would have cost too much, or chinese electronics supporting "tf card" instead of "micro sd card" but being compatible anyways
The reason is money. Google (in spite of what they would have you believe) does not show you what is "good" for you, it shows you what it gets paid to show you (paid in various, sometimes very complicated ways).
I am sad that Google services are so popular, because it makes the world a little bit worse for everyone. This includes not only Google Maps, but also Gmail (did you know that Google is quite active at censoring your E-mail and you will never see certain E-mails?).
I would really like to see more competition, ideally without the ever-present enshittification (I'm pretty sure Apple Maps will go down the drain, too, because KPIs and money).
Probably only works for as long as you are not living in a dictatorship, authoritarian state, utterly corrupt country, or similar. Then suddenly we would want our anonymity back.
While anonymity comes with its own issues for society, I am not convinced it would be worth it getting rid of it.
Does the "brand" include the physical shape of the connector?
Could I make hardware with a "NotHDMI" port that "happens" to be mechanically compatible with HDMI plugs, has the exact same pinout, etc etc?
Even then: In the OP case the hardware is already there, it's only about the driver. So wouldn't a driver for hardware that very clearly identifies the port as "HDMI" run into the same problem, even if the driver itself never mentions the term?
> The idea that someone is going to make an engaging experience on a “decentralized” network is honestly a bit silly to me. The market potential of this business is low. Decentralized networks with much larger incentives have failed to capture critical mass.
When decentralized networks win, they often win so big that they become invisible. AOL is dead, the web isn't. Email, the global telephone network, the internet itself, these are all decentralized networks.
The hardest part of doing this for social media is actually discovery. It's easier to show people an "engaging" feed when your algorithm has access to the full firehose to select from. But that doesn't mean doing it in a decentralized way is impossible, and if you pass a law that drives people away from centralized services, the incentive to do it goes up.
> (even assuming we know we're just talking about earth)
This is a nitpick, but life on other planets wouldn't be called “animals”. Animal is a clade defined by common ancestry. The only way you could have an extraterrestrial animal is for it to have evolved on Earth and then migrated somehow, and I think we can fairly confidently rule that out.
I had some savings during the pandemic and I needed to choose between down payment for a house or fund my patient monitoring venture. I had contact with few care home chains and very positive feedback and even agreement for a test run. I was pussy and went for a home. Couple years later no semiconductor parts were available anymore and I was super happy with my cautious decision. I heard of few hardware ventures, which died during part shortage. What an unfortunate time. There was a product, market opportunity, but simply no production material.
The original sensor got discontinued, I have some savings again and would love to try the same with radar approach. Anyone willing to analyze well being of old people from radar data together?
I think they are trying too much to have you jump on GCP. Having a simpler UI with a credit limit (maybe even at a different rate) would actually get more people to use it imo.
Design patterns can be really helpful. In my previous job I worked on enterprise .NET applications. It made sense to use common patterns, because most applications were big and the patterns made it easier to understand unfamiliar code, within an application but also across different teams and applications. New projects looked familiar, because the same style and the same patterns were used.
Now I'm working on an old (+10 years) JS application. Similar patterns were implemented, but in this case it's not helpful at all. The code looks very corporate and Java EE style, with a ton of getters and setters (`getName() {}`, not `get name() {}`, factories, facades, adapters, etc, etc. It's usually completely unclear what the benefit of the pattern is, and code is more complicated, for instance because creating new instances of business objects is split into `Object.build` which calls `new Object`, with no guidelines at all what part of the initialization should be in `build` and what should be in the constructor.
The gist of my comment is that patterns can be useful, but usually they're overused and if you implement one without understanding why and without benefiting from faster understanding the code because the pattern is applied consistently over multiple instances, the result is worse than just implementing what you need in a readable way (YAGNI).
You would think so, but it actually doesn't. last time I checked, libstdc++ could only optimize std::bind closures. A trivial test with a stateless lambda shows this is still the case in GCC14 and 15. In fact I can't even seem to trigger the library optimization with bind.
Differently from GCC14, GCC15 itself does seem to be able to optimize the allocation (and the whole std::function) in trivial cases though (independently
It's surprising to me at how hard companies are pushing AI when it's in such a poor usability state.
I was trying to sign up my step dad to SiriusXM (he wanted it) so I called their phone number. The first interaction with the company is them saying you are speaking to an AI and to ask what I'm trying to do. So I said something like "I'd like to sign up for a new account but have a question about the promotional price". It said it couldn't understand the request and I had to repeat things a few times until it gave up and sent me to a human where the question was resolved quickly but it took minutes to reach a human.
It's wild to me that companies are putting AI at the top of their sales funnel.
Unfortunately, it’s also intended to be not just accessible, but ”principles-driven”. Can’t have that. (More seriously, it’s probably more appropriate for screens than print)
