Honestly: Yes. It's an example that perfectly encapsulates how windows "as a concept" actively babies and dumbs down its users. I the 00's, nobody had a problem with file extensions, but now that we're working with users that have grown up with computers we suddenly need to remove them because they're "too confusing"?
CapeWearingAeroplane
joined 1 year ago
The amount of times someone has asked me why something doesn't work, and I've silently pointed to the sentence or paragraph next to the code snippet they've copied...
Well yes, I get the differerence between an interface and a class, and what I write is typically a class, which contains properties and functionality that may or may not be overridden in derived classes.
For example, calling a parent class implementation can be useful when I have a derived model that needs to validate its input in some specific way, but otherwise does the same as the base class.
What I don't understand is why this makes OOP bad?
I've seen this thing where people dislike inheritance a lot, and I have to admit that I kind of struggle with seeing the issue when it's used appropriately. I write a bunch of models that all share a large amount of core functionality, so of course I write an abstract base class in which a couple methods are overridden by derived models. I think it's beautiful in the way that I can say "This model will do X, Y, Z, as long as there exists an implementation of methods A, B, C, which have these signatures", then I can inherit that base class and implement A, B, and C for a bunch of different cases. In short, I think it's a very useful way to express the purpose of the code, without focusing on the implementation of specific details, and a very natural way of expressing that two classes are closely related models, with the same functionality, as expressed by the base class.
I honestly have a hard time seeing how not using inheritance would make such a code base cleaner, but please tell me, I would love to learn.
Looking at a half circle and guessing that the "missing part" is a full circle is as much of a blind guess as you can get. You have exactly zero evidence that there is another half circle present. The missing part could be anything, from nothing to any shape that incorporates a half circle. And you would be guessing without any evidence whatsoever as to which of those things it is. That's blind guessing.
Extrapolating into regions without prior data with a non-predictive model is blind guessing. If it wasn't, the model would be predictive, which generative AI is not, is not intended to be, and has not been claimed to be.
I 100 % agree on your primary point. I still want to point out that a detail in a 4k picture that takes up a few pixels will likely be invisible to the naked eye unless you zoom. "Digital zoom" without interpolation is literally just that: Enlarging the picture so that you can see details that take up too few pixels for you to discern them clearly at normal scaling.
No computer algorithm can accurately reconstruct data that was never there in the first place.
What you are showing is (presumably) a modified visualisation of existing data. That is: given a photo which known lighting and lens distortion, we can use math to display the data (lighting, lens distortion, and input registered by the camera) in a plethora of different ways. You can invert all the colours if you like. It's still the same underlying data. Modifying how strongly certain hues are shown, or correcting for known distortion are just techniques to visualise the data in a clearer way.
"Generative AI" is essentially just non-predictive extrapolation based on some data set, which is a completely different ball game, as you're essentially making a blind guess at what could be there, based on an existing data set.
You'll survive for quite a while once you're below 6000 m. In free fall that would take you around 90 s, assuming a fall from 11000 m, and that it takes 200 m (5 s) of fall to reach terminal velocity of 200 km/h.
This is quite rough, but gives an appropriate order of magnitude. In those 90 s, you would be very likely to pass out and be guaranteed to get severe frost bite. We're talking major amputations levels of frost bite, as you would be moving at 200 km/h, exposed, in temperatures in the -50 C to -10 C range. I've seen people get frost bites moving at 40 km/h in -15 C for a couple of minutes with just a sliver of skin exposed.
So short answer: You might survive getting into the survivable range, but at the very least you will require intense and immediate medical attention upon landing. Seeing as there will be potentially a couple hundred people spread out over a large, possibly remote, area requiring this attention, it's unlikely that many, if any, would survive the ordeal, even if most people survived the initial 5000 m of fall into the survivable altitude range.
Hehe, I absolutely agree.. for reference, High Sierra is v10.13, released in 2017. I'm now running v13, released 2022. They moved from v10.15 to v11 in 2020, when the arm chips were released.
My old MacBook could probably run 10.15 just fine, but I don't have any good reason to update it, as it's only purpose now is to compile distributables for other old machines.
Also: I really dislike that they've been pushing non-backwards compatible major releases so hard since 2020. I'm not updating my OS because I can't be bothered to break shit, it shouldn't be like that..
I believe brew dropped support for a high Sierra just a couple years back (2022 I think) but as of now my 2012 MacBook Pro is still chugging along whenever I need to compile or test something for x86 and can't be bothered to cross-compile from my new MacBook :)
If that is the case, that he was using a gun until it jammed, it makes more sense to me. At the same time, how often does an ordinary gun jam? I've used an HK416 and an MG3 during a year of army service (conscription training) and to my memory you could fire many hundred rounds (thousands in the case of the MG3) without a single jam, and a misfire takes about a second (max) to clear.
Also, I've seen people talking about the number of guns someone has also in other settings, as a kind of metric that people who are into guns seem to care about, I guess I'm more wondering about the phenomenon in general than just this specific case.
I mean, in a perfect world, yes. The issue comes up when someone wears out or breaks the drill, and it needs to be replaced or repaired. Whoever spends time and resources ensuring that we have a drill needs to be compensated somehow, because that's time they're not spending on making sure they have food and shelter.
Follow along that line of reasoning for a couple steps, and you end up with some kind of economic system, and likely some kind of enforcement system, so you're suddenly back at an early stage proto-state/government.