Why not do both though? I often now write my human summary, then paste in also the content you could get by asking a bot (with markers for which is which). You’re perfectly welcome to ignore the bot text, or ask your own bot, but bots are pretty slow, so I also don’t want to wait for it to “decompress” that 300 bit blob to get the detailed page back. But my human summaries are also only intended to be 50 bits — compressed again to just pass the signal I mean to convey, and not the whole prompt needed to fetch the right info from the right place to substantiate the claim.
TLDR the length was the same curtesy of tl;dr before, just now with a different name.
Several of my coworkers — it’s not that unusual that if you can max out a couple accounts, the companies will obviously notice you (as a high cost customer), and sometimes offer more
That only makes sense if money is a durable good destroyed by use. But money is improved by use and lost when put under a mattress. In economics terms, MV=PQ, and your proposal sets V low, which harms Q (goods available for sale)
No, no. The issuer of your money is really, really happy when you don't use the money. Because that means they can issue more money, without causing inflation to spike.
..and, you think that covers both individual and collective good?
..balance in all things. Neither being completely stingy, individually, nor being excessively spendy will benefit us, individually or collectively. ..but there are times for either.
I wonder if there's a way to quantify that and put a variable on the conditions, and have an inflationary/deflationary currencynthat is dynamically stable depending on conditions.
..i mean, individually, most people will eventually spend, if they have much saved and it benefits them to do so. but occasionally, we do need a kick in the pants. whenever the economynis in gridlock, that's the time for inflation. ..but when people are spending excessively, it's a time for deflation, which discourages taking on debt, and pushes the economy towards real wealth. rewarding long-term thinkers is valuable, and has a very broad effect on society.
It seems pretty much how law (specifically common law) has always worked though. If Congress thinks the law should apply to them, then Congress's job is to write a law that applies to them. The president and judicial branches are not supposed to make new laws, but rather to enforce the laws as written.
My reading of the EPA's statement here is they also wanted to mildly warn the companies that if they ever in the future want to contemplate connecting to the grid (eg. to bring down costs), they should be aware that bypassing compliance now could have expensive consequences for them later. Of course, Congress (local or federal) could also change the law in the much shorter term, so there's risk to them either way if they design without any forward thought for how to comply. On the other hand, if this inquiry to the EPA was merely requesting clarity on whether they are exempt from the reporting paperwork, but are using otherwise standard and compliant designs, then maybe the law is already working generally as intended.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to this President and his EPA that they are simply enforcing the laws as intended is foolish, irrational, and against all known evidence and their own words and policies and actions.
Use a Mac or iphone? The opt-dash key combo has mapped to em-dash for a long time, and I think you can now just long press the dash key too. The opt key doesn’t scale beyond the hundred or so extra characters it gives space to live on the keyboard, but it sure is a lot better than memorizing Unicode code points, and the rest I can get from the Fn (or Fn-E), which activates a Unicode search panel just about everywhere. I don’t know which Linux toolkits do something similar, and Windows Character Map seems to be somehow even worse than I remember from several decades ago.
I don’t get that argument. Most of the time by the end of the session the comments from the agent encode tricky details that I told the agent to write down so it stops making “simplifying” assumptions. Thus comments at the end of a couple days of agent-only coding, when I start to actually read and edit the prose, contain the details which aren’t possible to know from reading the local code. It may help that my last couple sessions before I start reading the code myself are variations on telling the agent to self-review and improve the comments in specific ways, so the comments left are only those the agent thought remain meaningful at clarifying unexpected interactions between the local code and other code that needs to be referenced to understand it.
I think the parent meant it is more interesting to pose new problems than solve them. Posing a new conjecture along the path to solving something is a close cousin, but still seems more bounded than proposing something novel to prove—if only because proving that something novel is also actually interesting is subjective and thus difficult for a different reason.
macOS includes a GUI user land whereas Linux is just a kernel.
So Apple can build a whole user-controlled GUI workflow around memory exceptions, which Linux cannot.
Maybe what needs to happen is new Linux syscalls + signals for DEs to utilise for building memory exception UIs? But the problem then with that is you’re impacting the portability of those DEs. So some maintainers might still refuse to work with Linux to provide this.
That all said, I’m pretty sure KDE does provide GUI tools for when this kind of scenario arises.
I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
> I mentioned they aren't the only UNIX where this isn't a problem.
You did. But without examples, it’s a meaningless throwaway.
Personally, I can’t say I’ve pushed many other UNIX desktops that far that they’ve OOMed. Except maybe OpenSolaris and FreeBSD, neither of which faired much better. But they’d also suffer from the same kind of DE development issues I described for Linux.
> Also we cannot use the reasoning Linux means distributions, instead of using GNU/Linux for it, and other times Linux is just the kernel, depending on convenience.
I’m not saying it for convenience. I’m saying it because it matters in this specific situation.
Surely you must understand that the reason Windows and macOS have arguably better GUI support for OOM is because the same company that owns the kernel also writes the frontend too? It’s hardly rocket science as a concept.
As I said in my previous comment, there are ways Linux (the kernel) could work with DEs to bridge that gap. But at present, they’re entirely separate concerns.
> Who says it needs to be desktop for proper memory management, servers and embedded can crash willy-nilly with OOM?
The context of the thread is about the UX.
And the OS crashing isn’t a better option than an OOM killer. Frankly, there’s no good automated options. That’s why modern desktop OSs present users with a warning. And hence why we are talking about GUIs.
> In any case, Xenix, DG/UX, SunOS/Solaris, Aix, HP-UX, z/OS UNIX, NeXTSTEP.
Listing OSs doesn’t explain how they handle things better.
For example you’ve cited SunOS and I already said previously, I’ve seen SunOS completely die on its arse when OOM.
TLDR the length was the same curtesy of tl;dr before, just now with a different name.
reply