before long we'll all have to have to run six or seven different hyper-situational vscode forks, all incompatible with different sets of extensions, having separate subscriptions to the same underlying foundation models
i mean, if you're talking about how convenient is to shop there it kind of is? Doesn't matter if I'm technically close to a place if I gotta take a long detour to actually arrive.
Our system is already structured in a way to incentivize actually reinvesting and doing stuff with that money instead of adding it to one's personal hoard -- think that but enough to actually be effective
It's worth noting that a lot of attacks that seem hard to pull off get sooner or later packaged up in ways that people with remarkably little knowledge about computers much less computer security can use them.
An old roommate of mine had a friend that found it funny to change my wallpaper while I was out of my apartment. I didn't find it as funny so I set login passwords.
At some point it started happening again, and I eventually figured out my system had a bootkit on it that made it always accept a certain password. This wasn't a guy who knew what a bootkit was, conceptually, but managed to find one and instructions for how to install it.
well, matter for what? For building software that seems to work, sure, no. But for being able to speak to its capabilities -- or even know what they are, especially in the case of distributed systems it's definitely important.
this is why so many of the new DB offerings have docs that are either misleading or wrong -- often the doc writers or even the devs themselves don't know what invariants their system can guarantee and assume several that it can't.
map takes a function and returns a function that takes a list and returns a list. It has a type like: (a->b) -> [a] -> [b] (I take a function from type a to type b and return a function from list of a to list of b)
> Or is it more like you pass the multiply function the first operand (2 in this case) and it returns a function multiply-by-2 which you pass the second operand
The responses that amounted to "You did nothing wrong!" "We don't need to talk about this!" were what made the thread heated -- outside of that it was just a couple of posters realizing they made an incorrect assumption, what need was there to _debate_ that?
You're here fighting against the _grave injustice_ that someone ... felt a little bad about an assumption they made?
Having that "oh shit" moment isn't a bad thing. Realizing that these assumptions aren't necessarily true is important -- If you just subconsciously know computer people are dudes exclusionary behavior is really hard to notice.
It's snake oil -- entropy isn't "depleted" in any meaningful way; once your kernel PRNG has accumulated enough entropy that you'd be comfortable using it to generate a crypto key it is not going to cease being suitable for that just because you continue asking it for random numbers.
It's not possible for the pool to hide what chain it is working on from its miners. If you're connected to the ES-pool when it is working on the mainline chain and you see it start working on top of a block that is not on the main chain, that's a good indicator that it is a block ahead of the main chain.
If you see it work on top of yet another block that is not published, it's probably two ahead, and so on.
You of course, can't just connect and immediately know, but if you watch the pool (as a miner) you can figure it out.
> The receiver device runs a scaled-down Chrome browser with a receiver application that receives data over Internet Protocol and transmits it to the television via HDMI.