AC is a fairly nuanced problem, and I like to see evaporative cooling getting an update. Obviously there is a chemical component here but for a ton of climates evaporative cooling is the best choice.
I don't understand how people go through the effort of writing an article about containers but start out with a basic incorrect statement. They don't disconnect from the OS, and in fact are dependent on the OS.
This kind of intuition is why a high school level statistics or probability class seems so so valuable. I know not everyone will use the math per se, but the concepts apply to everyday life and are really hard to just grasp without having been taught it at some point.
I have been this person and I'm trying to move away from it. It really is a great skill to enjoy lifting others and to be the glue of a team. But there are multiple slippery slopes inherent to that role that make it difficult. You can begin to confound the knowledge of others as your own, and almost certainly your own IC skills will atrophy if not purposefully maintained. I think it also requires the explicit buy in of the team, or at least other seniors who understand the benefits and can help keep balance.
It just takes one jealous colleague or one "efficiency minded" manager type to completely rug pull you. I know it's valuable because I have benefitted from that person many many times, but it takes empathy and a lot of balance.
OpenAI has shown that these models at full power work great, so now they're trying to optimize for cost. I've gotten similar low accuracy responses from stuff it could handle a month ago.
It was kind of cringey when the model generated low accuracy nonsense the user detected that as "sentient." Come on
This is not good. Some of the time stuff is relevant if you're digging deep into it, but it's more like "uncomfortable truths we ignore for sanity." They're mostly edge cases that are unreasonable or silly to address until it's a problem.
Just listing off "falsehoods" is not a good exercise. It's literally an endless list. Some sections have no explanation and you lose context on what it is you should be learning.
More than half of what I read should just be deleted. It's not a reminder, or a lesson to be learned, or actionable
This guy is like an actual billionaire. I have no idea if his fraud extends to the actual drugs he's made money from, but I wish these kinds of people were held to higher standards. Zero chance he's gonna have any legal repercussion.
Sounds like a simple layer that can be retrofitted easily, but "there's nothing to hack" is absurd. The truth is that car security is bad, and any killswitch at all is something they don't come with standard.
This is an unhelpful oversimplification. There are lots of tasks that are maintenance, and the more code your team has written the more these tasks build up. I don't know what motivates someone to pretend it is the same as writing new features, but it deals with distinctly different risks.
I work in web, and one guy did this for two modules in a non-critical server, just TWO before I flat out told him to stop. "What does X mean" was a common question across people who had actually seen the code before and forgotten, and it was absolutely the first question someone trying to learn the codebase asked. It was a frustrating and silly practice that added to cognitive load and corroded faith in the authors decision-making.
In a team ecosystem where you probably need to optimize for readability and ease of use, try to be simple and accurate and get used to refactoring. Making up random shit is the worst advice I can think of.