Professional software engineer, musician, gamer, stoic, democratic socialist
Eh. I think bad faith usually means committing logical fallacies on purpose just to win an argument. I.e. you don’t care about the truth or a greater good, you just say anything it takes to “win”. It’s usually more deceptive than name calling.
Too bad Billionaires’ Row is already cutting out a big portion of that tax revenue with a loophole.
https://youtube.com/shorts/IlNFgf-2PRQ
Same as demon. Because my research indicates that this usage was originally a reference to Maxwell’s demon.
https://www.takeourword.com/TOW146/page4.html
I thought it was a reference to Maxwell’s demon.
Daemons in computing, generally processes that run on servers to respond to users, are named for Maxwell’s demon.
Even if you study, you might end up like him.
Definitely not from my parents. I had to teach myself in college and have been doing the same til now. Following recipes obviously helps, but also taking classes or watching YouTube is great for the more subtle points as well as making sure you’ve covered the basics.
I want to know if it’s correlated with handedness.
Or if you have like $5/mo to spend on a VPS, self-host vaultwarden. It’s compatible with the bitwarden apps and browser plugins.
The vendor/site does not need to know a name.
The idea is that people already trust the government with their identifying info. So what the government can do is issue, for example, an opaque “age ID” that is only to be used with an “over 18?” service hosted by the government. Then anyone visiting a website with age-restrictions would provide their age ID, which tells the site nothing about the user. The site checks the “over 18?” service. At no point do arbitrary websites need to collect identifying info.
Now obviously as I’ve described it, there are multiple problems:
One solution is to make the age ID into a “one time password” (OTP). Much like an authenticator app, you could have an app provided by the government which generates a new random OTP on request, and it would expire in a minute or so. Then users provide that instead of a constant age ID. Like before, the site checks the “over 18?” service using the OTP.
It’s still not perfect, but you’ll never solve the “adult buying beer for kids” trick without counterproductive measures. There are probably some additional tricks to make it better, but I don’t want to get too far into it.
EDIT: One more point. Having this “over 18?” service is itself a privacy risk, because it relies heavily on your trust in the government not to conspire with the sites you are visiting or to just log info about all of the age-restricted sites you visit. There are apparently solutions to this problem involving zero-knowledge proofs, but I don’t know quite enough to explain that entirely here.
EDIT2: I got curious and did a little more reading. The zero-knowledge proof idea kinda fails to prevent credential sharing, unless you rely on some kind of hardware cryptographic vault thing. I’m not sure if that ends up being strictly better than the service idea.
Another way you might prevent the govt from logging all of the age-restricted sites you visit is to put the service behind something like Tor to make the requesting site anonymous. But this still doesn’t prevent the govt from just knowing that you visited some age-restricted site at a specific time. Still not ideal.
I’ve started buying the frozen ramen (raw noodles) at my local asian market :)
Instant ramen is more expensive than rotisserie chicken right now.
Doesn’t happen to me on the web app.
This is not a shitpost, this is absolute gold.
Haha this immediately reminded me of this scene from White Lotus Season 3
I think you’re misunderstanding the incompleteness theorems.
Gödel’s incompleteness theorems also apply to universe and consciousness
Sure, if you assume the universe can be described by a computable formal system. Godel’s theorems apply only to computable formal systems.
To briefly summarize Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, it states that a formal system cannot describe everything.
That’s a gross oversimplification. It really says that (1) there are true statements about formal system S which cannot be proven within S and (2) S cannot prove its own consistency.
This means that a Turing Machine will never be able to simulate our universe or replicate consciousness, and thus to replicate a human brain.
You’ve previously assumed that the universe is a computable formal system. But all computable formal systems can be modeled as a Turing machine. This is a contradiction.
However, it could be feasible with Quantum Computer that are not based on formal system.
How would a quantum computer even work if it weren’t described by a formal system?
SSNs are supposed to be secret? Then why does every financial institution request it?
I have used OOP design patterns many times, but that doesn’t mean I use inheritance a lot. I almost always reach for interfaces instead.
It was actually typed. Python had type annotations at the time.
I only wrote C++ very early in my career so I don’t remember much, but I’m sure I at least tried some inheritance in toy games I would write. All of that code was trash though by my standards today.
Some legacy Python code that already used inheritance. I had to extend it, and it was pretty infeasible to refactor the whole thing to not use inheritance. Not sure if I technically regretted that decision, but it was definitely painful, since Python inheritance makes it really hard to follow program control flow.
That’s why I quit coffee. Tea doesn’t do that to me for whatever reason, probably just less caffeine total.
But I assume it also had something to do with high blood pressure.