Gnome 3 I don't use, I use xfce and the world is wonderful and the desktop never changes. I don't actually use a "desktop," but I do like a traditional window manager and task bar.
Gtk+ 3 is irrelevant to me. Even when I'm writing Gtk-based GUI apps I can just use the parts of the API that were in Gtk 2 if I want. There is nothing wrong with Gtk+ 3 though, the way there is with Gnome 3 and the needless shifting of paradigms. Gtk mostly behaves the way it always has, from the application perspective or the user perspective.
Wayland isn't something I'm ever likely to use. I guess I'm weird but I like having a networked window system. X isn't going away from serious platforms, even as other options are added.
If you can't manage a system because of systemd, if you actually have serious business-y high maintenance system needs and you can't learn how to have it be easier under systemd, then maybe it is actually just you? If OpenBSD does everything you need, this is probably more of a grooming issue than a technical issue.
This is funny stuff, all around. When I'm using Ruby, I solve this problem by not asking that types do any validation. Instead, each object has to be able to validate all its input fields, and generally will be expected to have staged data input where you set the values, validate them, and then save the object using an accessor that raises an error (or generates a log entry) without saving if the validation fails. This works really well even for things like, "the first parameter is an ascending sequence of even integers" or "the second field is an email address with validation logic loaded from an external db so the PHB can fiddle it twice weekly."
But most of the time I'm using C on bare metal. And what I get is an 8 bit data type that really is only allowed to have 3 of the bits set. If I'm lucky, I get a second 8 bit data type with a bit mask that I could use to manually either validate or cast the first value. But while the compiler is happy to be fairly strict about the 8bits part, there is no introspection at all in the system that will tell somebody the data is 3 bits.
Dynamic languages have much better type checking in practice, depending on your practices.
You can still define an interface using dynamically-typed languages.
Having interface police built into the language may or may not be good in one situation or another, but it is not a requirement of being able to define an interface.
Words matter, even in logically fuzzy field like programming.;)
OOP is only a style, not a thing. A language can have special features to support it, but code doesn't lack objects just because the language doesn't have special features for that.
If it is programmed using OOP semantics then it is OO regardless of language. Lots of OO is done in C. Even the whole Gtk library is OOP in plain C. In the 90s I had all the headers printed out as a desk reference.
So you don't need a struct. You could use one, but generally with OOP in C all you have to do is pass the reference to the object as the first argument, and only access anything through accessors. It doesn't matter if under the hood the reference is a struct containing the object data, or just a unique identifier that is used in some sort of table lookup. As long as you hide the implementation inside its compilation unit and the user has to pass the object-identifying reference into functions to do anything, then it will be "pure" OOP.
If you simmer down a word salad, I'm not sure it is really any improvement.
I can tell you from my Perl experience that just because the language is expressive doesn't mean that no translation is required to get from abstract business logic to implementation. I've used Python and there it gives no advantage in this area.
My advice to the blog author it to stick to being a blog author, because in the real world the implementations are not all trivial.
This is an example of why 20 years later, I'm still running RedHat/Fedora/Centos family distros.
I want all my FLOSS software to work. And I want business integration to work too. I don't want to have to choose them because they're not actually in conflict.
No, it is not the same amount of work. 22 does not equal 13. They can't have more money per episode because there are the same total number of episodes being created, there are just more shows with shorter seasons. It is the same amount of pay for the same amount of work.
It is the same amount of pay for the same amount of work.
There is nothing that is going to happen to cause 22 to equal 13 in just one part of the equation.
Sometimes I'll try the webcache if it is linked from someplace like google news and they're doing a bait-and-switch on the bots to get the content linked.
But if it still doesn't work, I wouldn't turn off the ad-blocker. You should always expect to get burned if you do. If the data is interesting, it is probably already mirrored somewhere or reported elsewhere.
The only sites that important are ones that wouldn't have tried to stop my access in the first place.
If the companies had been choosing offensive keywords, then those prices would come down.
But they're not choosing offensive keywords. They're choosing totally clean keywords and the ads run next to offensive ads anyways. So the relative demand for a particular keyword is unaffected by any of this.
And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.
I agree. If the video really deserves rewarding them, and they're making it in hopes of getting a reward, I can pay them through some sort of patronage site. They all seem to have links to those.
Just because I watched at least n% of the video does not automatically mean they deserve some money, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to spend time as a service provider to do some activity to reward them.
If they want to go to war over ads, and I end up only watching videos at archive.org, I'm OK with that. I enjoy some youtube content and if my income level goes up I'd probably subscribe. But I don't feel like I owe anything to anybody involved. If they really don't want me to use their content the way I want, they can use technical means to refrain from providing me the content. If they think it is a win for them, then they'll win.
Traffic is cheap and storage is relatively cheap, there will always be places that host the free how-tos and stuff.
IQ tests are complete crap. I've got a high enough score that it isn't sour grapes. More like syrupy grapes. Total complete bullshit, and the funniest part is that to get a high score I have to lie and give the answers that I think the test writer wanted to hear instead of the answers that I think are actually true.
Also, the algebra word problem at the end? The fish is always 72 inches, because the test authors suck at math and only one algebra story problem was ever created for IQ tests, and it was copied to all the others. So before even starting the real questions, skip to the end and get your Bonus Points.
If you're from a community where kids aren't subjected to IQ tests all the time... no Bonus Points for you, you bleeping moron. What are you, one of those [unpopular ethnicity] [pejorative]s?!?!
Trying to explain that to these idiots won't work, because they're not actually talking about IQ scores. They're just blowing dog whistles that us northerners can't hear without special training.
Thank you, thank you, the stupid was starting to hurt and now I can close this thread confident that the idiots were at least given an opportunity to understand the current state of the technology in comparison to what they would glibly simulate.
The AI isn't self-aware and isn't going to 'know' that it made a mistake, a real human will have to adjust its programming. Sort of like millennials.
If outcomes are an input then it might already be programmed to continually make adjustments, and it might not even need a special mistake-detecting algorithm to achieve it.
For example a traditional PID controller continuously calculates error and attempts to correct for it, and it doesn't use any sort of system of dichotomization to decide if a "mistake" was made. And a PID controller is about the simplest AI there is, you can implement it with gears and springs, or analog electronics, or digital logic. And it is advanced enough to avoid your presumed problem. Presumably, so are millennials.
As a Big Bang skeptic and Finite Universe skeptic, I wanted to point out that here it doesn't matter; if we agree that most communication will be limited to [the speed of light in a vacuum] and we admit that we're starting from a finite level of intelligence here on Earth, then the growth rate must be limited. Exponential growth of intelligence would only fit within the bounds of the speed of light and the minimum quanta for finite time period and it would eventually have to slow.
Even in an infinite universe, intelligence should remain a somewhat localized phenomenon whose growth is similar to what would be expected in a finite universe, just with more flexible bounds and the possibility of minor outliers.
It comes down to this: the maximum average communication speed is fixed, but as intelligence grows the average distance between nodes increases. Efficiency goes down as the size of the system increases.
Like my dad said over a decade ago regarding chess computers: "Did people ever stop running because airplanes can go faster? Do runners even care what the speed of an airplane is? Why would chess players care how good machines are at it? Why would it mean anything to philosophy or to competition?"
They're just fancy calculators. Some people get all twisted up whenever the chess computer can make a subtle move, but all it really shows is their lack of understand about the nature of the game. It isn't actually mystical, and humans aren't actually magically better at certain types of calculations or "understanding." Instead, our advantage is that we're generalized and exist in a broad physical context. AI exists in a very very narrow physical context. It can't really compete very well at being human, and humans can't compete very well at being calculators.
I read them all and the pages turn quite well. There are a couple thousand pages of the Butlerian Jihad. At first the computers are controlled by shadowy humans, then the AI takes over. Then the humans revolt and win because they're just too illogical for the AI to comprehend.
It is no more insightful than an advanced computer from Classic Trek. The author clearly doesn't understand what an AI is, and hasn't really internalized a philosophical understanding of probability. Illogical humans should be no trouble at all for a probabilistic logic system to understand, but instead the AI are treated as having large emotional biases against anything illogical; except that probability itself seems illogical to them. Similar to the conflicts that Spock had, but without as good of a back story (half human) to explain it. It is really a bit of a train wreck, but even so... the pages continue to turn well.
It is well-written, but that part of the story is really weak.
Other parts of the story were much better. Parts that dealt solely with traditional human drama elements were more entertaining. Anybody who read all 5000 pages or whatever it was of the original Dune series and wanted more will probably enjoy all the family and organizational back-story and sequel stuff.
The difference is, as a random slashdot reader I know that Reamde is a book worth reading. I also have an unfinished copy on a tablet. The only book by that author I didn't rapidly consume! And entirely because of the format.
I have non-DRM titles, too, and nobody would have heard of them if I got them through official channels. Almost all the non-DRM stuff that I paid for is on paper!
And I can get a paper copy of Reamde used for under $5.
Right, and for people with two braincells it took 5 minutes.
They're all about the same; you hold a button down until something flashes, and then there are one or two buttons changing the thing that is flashing. The only reason it takes a minute instead of 15 seconds is that you have to figure out which three buttons are used. And that isn't hard.
It amazes me that some people can make it out of bed in the morning without hurting themselves.
Right, that's normal; people who affected at all are generally affected dramatically. So it can be self-tested with a challenge test; check your BP, eat something salty, test it again. If it is close to normal, then reducing it probably will not improve outcomes. If it spikes, then reducing it probably will improve outcomes.
It is easy to convince people that different people have different needs, but it is harder to convince people to use evidence to decide what their personal needs are. People think about having different needs and instantly turn to their subjective feelings, which isn't what the lesson is at all. There is a tendency to stay all the way to one side or the other of reality.
Not just more salt; the Japanese have the #1 highest salt intake in the world. And the longest lifespans. And then people presume they must have a genetic protection, but that study has been done, they don't.
On an individuals basis each of these things does trade off causes, so whatever your personal higher risks are should be important.
Other news claims that writers are mad because their incomes went down, because TV "seasons" are shorter now.
If seasons are shorter, AND that has lead to decreased annual pay, THEN we know that more writers are getting paid! Because there aren't less total episodes being filmed, there are just more different shows, each with less episodes.
You're not missing anything, they're talking out at least three sides of their mouths.
Slashdot Mirror
I love systemd and PulseAudio.
Gnome 3 I don't use, I use xfce and the world is wonderful and the desktop never changes. I don't actually use a "desktop," but I do like a traditional window manager and task bar.
Gtk+ 3 is irrelevant to me. Even when I'm writing Gtk-based GUI apps I can just use the parts of the API that were in Gtk 2 if I want. There is nothing wrong with Gtk+ 3 though, the way there is with Gnome 3 and the needless shifting of paradigms. Gtk mostly behaves the way it always has, from the application perspective or the user perspective.
Wayland isn't something I'm ever likely to use. I guess I'm weird but I like having a networked window system. X isn't going away from serious platforms, even as other options are added.
If you can't manage a system because of systemd, if you actually have serious business-y high maintenance system needs and you can't learn how to have it be easier under systemd, then maybe it is actually just you? If OpenBSD does everything you need, this is probably more of a grooming issue than a technical issue.
This is funny stuff, all around. When I'm using Ruby, I solve this problem by not asking that types do any validation. Instead, each object has to be able to validate all its input fields, and generally will be expected to have staged data input where you set the values, validate them, and then save the object using an accessor that raises an error (or generates a log entry) without saving if the validation fails. This works really well even for things like, "the first parameter is an ascending sequence of even integers" or "the second field is an email address with validation logic loaded from an external db so the PHB can fiddle it twice weekly."
But most of the time I'm using C on bare metal. And what I get is an 8 bit data type that really is only allowed to have 3 of the bits set. If I'm lucky, I get a second 8 bit data type with a bit mask that I could use to manually either validate or cast the first value. But while the compiler is happy to be fairly strict about the 8bits part, there is no introspection at all in the system that will tell somebody the data is 3 bits.
Dynamic languages have much better type checking in practice, depending on your practices.
You can still define an interface using dynamically-typed languages.
Having interface police built into the language may or may not be good in one situation or another, but it is not a requirement of being able to define an interface.
Words matter, even in logically fuzzy field like programming. ;)
OTOH, the C compiler doesn't even know about the existence of header files.
OOP is only a style, not a thing. A language can have special features to support it, but code doesn't lack objects just because the language doesn't have special features for that.
If it is programmed using OOP semantics then it is OO regardless of language. Lots of OO is done in C. Even the whole Gtk library is OOP in plain C. In the 90s I had all the headers printed out as a desk reference.
So you don't need a struct. You could use one, but generally with OOP in C all you have to do is pass the reference to the object as the first argument, and only access anything through accessors. It doesn't matter if under the hood the reference is a struct containing the object data, or just a unique identifier that is used in some sort of table lookup. As long as you hide the implementation inside its compilation unit and the user has to pass the object-identifying reference into functions to do anything, then it will be "pure" OOP.
If you simmer down a word salad, I'm not sure it is really any improvement.
I can tell you from my Perl experience that just because the language is expressive doesn't mean that no translation is required to get from abstract business logic to implementation. I've used Python and there it gives no advantage in this area.
My advice to the blog author it to stick to being a blog author, because in the real world the implementations are not all trivial.
This is an example of why 20 years later, I'm still running RedHat/Fedora/Centos family distros.
I want all my FLOSS software to work. And I want business integration to work too. I don't want to have to choose them because they're not actually in conflict.
No, it is not the same amount of work. 22 does not equal 13. They can't have more money per episode because there are the same total number of episodes being created, there are just more shows with shorter seasons. It is the same amount of pay for the same amount of work.
It is the same amount of pay for the same amount of work.
There is nothing that is going to happen to cause 22 to equal 13 in just one part of the equation.
Sometimes I'll try the webcache if it is linked from someplace like google news and they're doing a bait-and-switch on the bots to get the content linked.
But if it still doesn't work, I wouldn't turn off the ad-blocker. You should always expect to get burned if you do. If the data is interesting, it is probably already mirrored somewhere or reported elsewhere.
The only sites that important are ones that wouldn't have tried to stop my access in the first place.
If the companies had been choosing offensive keywords, then those prices would come down.
But they're not choosing offensive keywords. They're choosing totally clean keywords and the ads run next to offensive ads anyways. So the relative demand for a particular keyword is unaffected by any of this.
And less money to jackoffs who make the videos. It's win-win, I agree.
I agree. If the video really deserves rewarding them, and they're making it in hopes of getting a reward, I can pay them through some sort of patronage site. They all seem to have links to those.
Just because I watched at least n% of the video does not automatically mean they deserve some money, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to spend time as a service provider to do some activity to reward them.
If they want to go to war over ads, and I end up only watching videos at archive.org, I'm OK with that. I enjoy some youtube content and if my income level goes up I'd probably subscribe. But I don't feel like I owe anything to anybody involved. If they really don't want me to use their content the way I want, they can use technical means to refrain from providing me the content. If they think it is a win for them, then they'll win.
Traffic is cheap and storage is relatively cheap, there will always be places that host the free how-tos and stuff.
IQ tests are complete crap. I've got a high enough score that it isn't sour grapes. More like syrupy grapes. Total complete bullshit, and the funniest part is that to get a high score I have to lie and give the answers that I think the test writer wanted to hear instead of the answers that I think are actually true.
Also, the algebra word problem at the end? The fish is always 72 inches, because the test authors suck at math and only one algebra story problem was ever created for IQ tests, and it was copied to all the others. So before even starting the real questions, skip to the end and get your Bonus Points.
If you're from a community where kids aren't subjected to IQ tests all the time... no Bonus Points for you, you bleeping moron. What are you, one of those [unpopular ethnicity] [pejorative]s?!?!
Trying to explain that to these idiots won't work, because they're not actually talking about IQ scores. They're just blowing dog whistles that us northerners can't hear without special training.
Calling people names to bully them for having a different opinion than you is unlikely to decrease their interest in social justice.
That's explains why there is a single ad-blocker that most of the people here are recommending.
Thank you, thank you, the stupid was starting to hurt and now I can close this thread confident that the idiots were at least given an opportunity to understand the current state of the technology in comparison to what they would glibly simulate.
The AI isn't self-aware and isn't going to 'know' that it made a mistake, a real human will have to adjust its programming. Sort of like millennials.
If outcomes are an input then it might already be programmed to continually make adjustments, and it might not even need a special mistake-detecting algorithm to achieve it.
For example a traditional PID controller continuously calculates error and attempts to correct for it, and it doesn't use any sort of system of dichotomization to decide if a "mistake" was made. And a PID controller is about the simplest AI there is, you can implement it with gears and springs, or analog electronics, or digital logic. And it is advanced enough to avoid your presumed problem. Presumably, so are millennials.
Some people have a gap. Some people don't.
I can remember breast feeding. And falling on my head when I was 2. And playing in an outdoor sandbox full of cat turds at age 3.
But I don't have clear, continuous memory until close to age 4.
As a Big Bang skeptic and Finite Universe skeptic, I wanted to point out that here it doesn't matter; if we agree that most communication will be limited to [the speed of light in a vacuum] and we admit that we're starting from a finite level of intelligence here on Earth, then the growth rate must be limited. Exponential growth of intelligence would only fit within the bounds of the speed of light and the minimum quanta for finite time period and it would eventually have to slow.
Even in an infinite universe, intelligence should remain a somewhat localized phenomenon whose growth is similar to what would be expected in a finite universe, just with more flexible bounds and the possibility of minor outliers.
It comes down to this: the maximum average communication speed is fixed, but as intelligence grows the average distance between nodes increases. Efficiency goes down as the size of the system increases.
Like my dad said over a decade ago regarding chess computers: "Did people ever stop running because airplanes can go faster? Do runners even care what the speed of an airplane is? Why would chess players care how good machines are at it? Why would it mean anything to philosophy or to competition?"
They're just fancy calculators. Some people get all twisted up whenever the chess computer can make a subtle move, but all it really shows is their lack of understand about the nature of the game. It isn't actually mystical, and humans aren't actually magically better at certain types of calculations or "understanding." Instead, our advantage is that we're generalized and exist in a broad physical context. AI exists in a very very narrow physical context. It can't really compete very well at being human, and humans can't compete very well at being calculators.
I read them all and the pages turn quite well. There are a couple thousand pages of the Butlerian Jihad. At first the computers are controlled by shadowy humans, then the AI takes over. Then the humans revolt and win because they're just too illogical for the AI to comprehend.
It is no more insightful than an advanced computer from Classic Trek. The author clearly doesn't understand what an AI is, and hasn't really internalized a philosophical understanding of probability. Illogical humans should be no trouble at all for a probabilistic logic system to understand, but instead the AI are treated as having large emotional biases against anything illogical; except that probability itself seems illogical to them. Similar to the conflicts that Spock had, but without as good of a back story (half human) to explain it. It is really a bit of a train wreck, but even so... the pages continue to turn well.
It is well-written, but that part of the story is really weak.
Other parts of the story were much better. Parts that dealt solely with traditional human drama elements were more entertaining. Anybody who read all 5000 pages or whatever it was of the original Dune series and wanted more will probably enjoy all the family and organizational back-story and sequel stuff.
The difference is, as a random slashdot reader I know that Reamde is a book worth reading. I also have an unfinished copy on a tablet. The only book by that author I didn't rapidly consume! And entirely because of the format.
I have non-DRM titles, too, and nobody would have heard of them if I got them through official channels. Almost all the non-DRM stuff that I paid for is on paper!
And I can get a paper copy of Reamde used for under $5.
Right, and for people with two braincells it took 5 minutes.
They're all about the same; you hold a button down until something flashes, and then there are one or two buttons changing the thing that is flashing. The only reason it takes a minute instead of 15 seconds is that you have to figure out which three buttons are used. And that isn't hard.
It amazes me that some people can make it out of bed in the morning without hurting themselves.
Right, that's normal; people who affected at all are generally affected dramatically. So it can be self-tested with a challenge test; check your BP, eat something salty, test it again. If it is close to normal, then reducing it probably will not improve outcomes. If it spikes, then reducing it probably will improve outcomes.
It is easy to convince people that different people have different needs, but it is harder to convince people to use evidence to decide what their personal needs are. People think about having different needs and instantly turn to their subjective feelings, which isn't what the lesson is at all. There is a tendency to stay all the way to one side or the other of reality.
Not just more salt; the Japanese have the #1 highest salt intake in the world. And the longest lifespans. And then people presume they must have a genetic protection, but that study has been done, they don't.
On an individuals basis each of these things does trade off causes, so whatever your personal higher risks are should be important.
Other news claims that writers are mad because their incomes went down, because TV "seasons" are shorter now.
If seasons are shorter, AND that has lead to decreased annual pay, THEN we know that more writers are getting paid! Because there aren't less total episodes being filmed, there are just more different shows, each with less episodes.
You're not missing anything, they're talking out at least three sides of their mouths.