- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
1916·9 months agoI always think it’s unfair to compare things to video games. Video games are so inefficient they had to invent a separate processor with hundreds of cores just to run them. Of course they end up running well.
If cheap phones had a 128-core JavaScript Processing Unit, websites would probably run fast too.
I’m a web dev and yes they could. It’s annoying that web devs get blamed for it though, the reason for all the javascript is mostly business decisions out of our control.
Mainly the tracking scripts which the marketing department adds against out will. But also it’s a lot cheaper to have a client-rendered web app than a traditional website (with client side rendering you can shut off all your web servers and just keep the api servers, our server side processing went down 90% in the switchover). And it’s more efficient for the company to have one team working in one programming language and one framework that can run the backend and frontend, so the frontend ends being a web app even if it’s not really necessary.
The most fair thing to do, oddly, is to leave the seat in the opposite position it was when you got there; everybody flips it once, it may be before or after you use it. Fair.
I’ll remember this one, I love it when people are actually logical about things.
Reminds me of canal locks. The etiquette is to always close the doors after you leave, and people get angry when you don’t. But it’s infuriating because it actually creates more work for everyone. If you leave the doors closed then the next person always has to stop their boat to open them, but if you leave them open there’s a 50% chance the correct set of doors is open for the next person to sail right in. If you’re in the unlucky 50% it makes no difference, because you had to stop to empty the lock anyway and afterwards you get to sail off without closing them.
People also think closing them saves water, which is another can of people-not-understanding-physics worms.
There’s a generation of internet debate guys who seem convinced that correlation disproves causation
The dude who owns the election server won’t be able to manipulate results in any way.
Sure he will. He can just ignore votes for one candidate and not add them to the chain. Blockchains are only resistant to manipulation if they’re distributed and people agree on the canonical version. Even then if enough people agree to manipulate them they can, like they did with Ethereum.
0·1 year agoSorry I’m responsible for something Britain did before my parents were born, I’ll try to do better in future
The DiCaprio thing is funny.
In the 80s or 90s everyone knew that a movie star having a series of young starlet girlfriends meant they’re gay. They get a beard to cover their sexuality and the girlfriend gets exposure from having a famous boyfriend. They split up because it’s obviously not a real relationship, and the studio finds some new actress to link him to.
But being gay got so much more acceptable recently that people don’t understand being closeted any more. So they think DiCaprio is a dirty old man who will only date 22 year olds.
I wonder what people think of me calling stuff “wicked”, which I started saying because of Richard Blackwood’s song “1.2.3.4 Get with the Wicked” in the year 2000
Never seen anyone else mention this, but when I click a post on page 2 then go back, it shows the page 1 posts again. But because the URL is set up for page 2, clicking next goes to page 3. If I don’t concentrate I end up reading one post from each page and missing 90% of my feed.
deleted by creator
What makes a language easy is its similarity to a learner’s native language, or other languages they’ve already learned.
Don’t believe this at all. English is far more different to Chinese than any to any European language, yet I was able to communicate in Chinese much better after a few weeks of learning than after months or years of French and Spanish, because the grammar is simpler.
Familiarity with cognates, word order and grammar rules can’t beat simply never having to use an article, agree gender or conjugate a verb for the subject or tense. Tell me a Chinese verb and I can talk about anybody doing it at any point in time. Tell me a French verb and I’ll have to study declension tables all week.
However, if you learn english words through text and then try to use them vocally, nobody will understand you. (looking at you “beard”, who isn’t pronounced at all like “bear” for some reason)
If someone pronounced beard like bear with a d on the end I’d understand them fine. Particularly since the rest of the sentence would probably be perfectly grammatical since the grammar is so simple.
People might understand “Le baguette sont fraîche”, they might not. How do they know which words you got right and which you got wrong? They just know nothing agrees. Either way you will sound like a total moron. And you need to learn 3 different grammar rules to fix it, not just one pronunciation.
There is absolutely no correlation between spoken and written english
Come on, this is silly. I’m looking at your comment and almost every word has regular pronunciation. Any incorrect pronunciations would be easily understood. The specific examples you give are just regional differences.
English is easier. So the spelling is irregular, so what. You’ll be bad at spelling for a while. It’s just not comparable to having to memorize arbitrary gender for every noun in the language, learn complex verb conjugations, polite and impolite forms and make every verb and adjective agree with the nouns in gender and number.
6·1 year agoOr even just wait for a single replication of actual superconductivity, rather than a vague reaction to magnetic fields.
To be clear, absolutely no one has replicated zero resistance, which is the only thing that matters for a superconductor.
All of the “successful replications” so far have just been tiny flakes of material moving in a magnetic field. No one has even got it to fully levitate, they all stand on one end, which any ferromagnet would do. One video demonstrated that a flake was not attracted to the magnet, which could rule out ferromagnetism. Even assuming that’s true it could still just be diamagnetic - pyrolytic carbon behaves exactly the same way and it’s not a superconductor.
But the naysayers will argue that your problem is not novel and a solution can be trivially deduced from the training data. Right?
Yes, obviously. Unless @Serdan is publishing papers about their solutions to previously unsolved computation problems, we should assume that by “novel problem” they actually just mean “a mundane problem for which every step of the solution is trivial, even if they’ve never been combined in that exact order before”.
Also since companies are adding AI to everything, sometimes when you think you’re just doing a digital zoom you’re actually getting AI upscaling.
There was a court case not long ago where the prosecution wasn’t allowed to pinch-to-zoom evidence photos on an iPad for the jury, because the zoom algorithm creates new information that wasn’t there.