I have a really weird one where shandy (beer mixed with lemonade) smells like rubber to me. Like when you rub a balloon really hard.

You guys can smell balloons being rubbed, right? 😅

I think, people are largely not aware that genetic differences can affect the taste so much, so they just assume that everyone experiences the same taste, just with different preferences for different tastes.

But yeah, when I learned that cumin is another candidate for genetic differences in taste perception, I also had to ask a friend to describe the taste, because I’ve never seen the taste described anywhere. For me, it just tastes extremely hollow, while it’s apparently a rather rich taste for other folks…

Damn, that’s a thicc case then. Probably a good idea, though, when you give it to a kid, especially a kid trapped in VR…

Imagine having space for a toaster or an oven.
– a pan lover

Is that a VR Etch A Sketch? I’m not sure, I understand the future either…

You can buy artificial diamonds for fairly cheap. Like, we’re talking so cheap that they’re put onto angle grinder discs.

It’s just propaganda/stupidity that folks continue to pay insane prices for mined diamonds. Well, in part it is the point, to spend a lot of money. If we didn’t treat diamonds as expensive, we’d find something else to waste money on. It’s not like diamonds were so beautiful or useful, that they were worth the price to begin with.

Yeah, I’m all for a place like that existing, but it really doesn’t need to exist in my timeline, which I might scroll while I’m on the bus or such…

They cause a huge amount of load, deteriorating the service for everyone else. I’m also guessing the time ranges in the graph, where there’s no data, is when OP’s server crashed from the load and had to restart.

That kind of shit can easily trigger alerting and will look like a DDoS attack. I would be pissed, too, if I dropped everything to see why my server is going down and it’s not even proper criminals, but rather just some silicon valley cunts.

My best guess is that they don’t just index things, but rather download straight from the internet when they need fresh training data. They can’t really cache the whole internet after all…

What I always find frustrating about that, is that even a colleague with much more Bash experience than me, will ask me what those options are, if I slap a set -euo pipefail or similar into there.

I guess, I could prepare a snippet like in the article with proper comments instead:

set -e # exit on error
set -u # exit on unset variable
set -o pipefail # exit on errors in pipes

Maybe with the whole trapping thing, too.

But yeah, will have to remember to use that. Most Bash scripts start out as just quickly trying something out, so it’s easy to forget setting the proper options…

I don’t have the Bash experience to argue against that, but from a general programming experience, I want things to crash as loudly as possible when anything unexpected happens. Otherwise, you might never spot it failing.

Well, and nevermind that it could genuinely break things, if an intermediate step fails, but it continues running.

You replied to the wrong guy, but I think they rather meant it as “unless you’re using a password manager (…because password managers are generally capable of storing extra data)”. 😅

I mean, even if it can’t store extra data in one entry, you could still create multiple entries for a single account and just name the entries similarly.

And to give an example of a password manager intentionally kept so simple that, well, there is a solution, but it is somewhat choose-your-own-adventure: https://www.passwordstore.org/#organization
(You can get GUIs for it, which may have a premade solution after all, for example: https://f-droid.org/packages/app.passwordstore.agrahn )

Well, there might be other reasons to need them. For example, I once got locked out of an account, because I had lost the 2FA credentials (which I did not have in KeePass, incidentally). The webpage let me back in with a recovery question.

Well, technically, it was a recovery code which was just random symbols I had been provided upon account creation, but kind of the same thing in the end.

Well, I’d rather write down anything I enter, in case I do ever need it. But yeah, generally speaking you shouldn’t need the answers.

You can also store these in a password manager like KeePass…

Man, I understand that it’s trying to give tips, but this really comes off as condescending. “Just create these three pieces of complex, non-obvious documentation and ensure you have highly automated specification and code quality checks.”

I also have to say, if you expect maintainers to be experts in how to correctly prompt LLMs, and expect them to be hot for reviewing/rewriting generated code, then they might as well prompt the LLMs themselves.
Sure, there may be extra effort involved by outside contributors – may, because they do attract folks who have no interest in putting in any effort – but is that really worth the overhead of having to communicate with the LLM through a middleman?

I’m open for counterarguments, but I always felt this was a silly way of looking at things. You cannot measure stuff at the quantum level without significantly altering what you measured. (You can never measure without altering what you measured, since we typically blast stuff with photons from a light source to be able to look at it, but for stuff that’s significantly larger than photons, the photons are rather insignificant.)

As such, you can look at measuring quanta in two ways:

1. Either the quantum had the state that you end up measuring all along. It is only “undetermined”, because strictly nothing can measure it before you do that first measurement.
2. Or you can declare it to have some magical “superposition”, from which it jumps into an actual state in the instant that you do the measurement.

Well, and isn’t quantum entanglement evidence for 1.? You entangle these quanta, then you measure one of them. At this point, you already know what the other one will give as a result for its measurement, even though you have not measured/altered it yet.
You can do the measurement quite a bit later and still get the result that you deduced from measuring the entangled quantum. (So long as nothing else altered the property you want to measure, of course…)

The analogy that makes most sense to me so far, is this:
You rip a photograph in half and put both halves into envelopes. Now you send one of the envelopes to your friend in Australia. You open the other envelope. Boom! Instantaneous knowledge of what’s in the envelope in Australia. Faster than light!!!

In quantum terms, you “rip a photograph in half” by somehow producing two quanta, which are known to have correlated properties. For example, you can produce two quanta, where one has a positive spin and the other a negative spin, and you know those to be equally strong. If you now measure the spin of the first quantum, you know that the other has the opposite spin.

Yeah, some folks even say “ally” with their mouth, when they’re talking about accessibility/a11y…

I2O