It never occurred to me that a rebuttal to "not using lines of code or bugs solved because it can be gamed" is just to point out productivity is literally always gamed
Edit: Anyways I like this. Love the idea of companies taking over for helping out the underrepresented in their ranks. This is a natural progression from remote work.
1. 1. 1. is on purpose, the Markdown rendering software will number it. This has the advantage that you don't need to update the numbers in the source if you move/add/remove lines.
The lack of official spec is really holding back markdown, I always find it grating when someone mentions that their site renders "Github Flavored Markdown". It should just be markdown. It would be great if Github didnt have this vendor lock in on markdown
"Vendor lock-in" implies that by choosing GitHub flavored markdown apps are somehow beholden to GitHub. Plenty of independent markdown parsers support GFM. Using GitHub flavored markdown is no more "locked in" than using the Airbnb style guide for JS is. It's just a convenient shorthand for "here are the conventions we use".
I'd argue the official spec is now https://commonmark.org/ - it was partially reversed from the actual implementations in use and their behaviours, and is very highly specific compared to the original guide.
The purpose is to give the indication that it's a numbered list to the rendering engine in each case. If the spec was to use # # # for a numbered list and a * * * for a bulleted list, it would have have the same result.
That 1. 1. 1. and 1. 2. 3. are both rendered the same is a statement to the loosens of the spec, not the incorrectness of 1. 1. 1.
I’d argue that seeing 1. 1. 1. Is actually better than seeing them increasing but being out of order. Less of a hack and while reading them unformatted you just think of it like a HTML OL with list items. Or of the 1 as a keyword meaning ordered list item.
Interesting. With editable docs, things sometimes get added above the points or reordered and then re-numbered which makes the discussion misleading. The reason I prefer bullets is that it encourages people to quote the relevant section when discussing.
The judgement about whether an email needs a response is left to the receiver who would be responding, in their statement. I like that mental model of things. :)
That leaves room for miscommunication, though. If someone expects a response from me, I'd rather they make sure to ask it at the very top so that I don't miss that request with everything else that's going on.
Re-reading the statement, maybe they simply mean replies should be above the original e-mail rather than inline?
The core purpose of Markdown is for the source to look decent and readable, not match the output exactly. You can tell it's a numbered list, so it works.
Hacker News often trims clickbaity words from headlines. Modern headlines are low on substance and high on curiosity-inducing phrases ("How", "Why", "You wouldn't believe..."). This is in contrast to the style of newspaper headlines before the internet, when editors tried to summarize the entire story in one sentence. Naturally such a headline was low on detail, but the goal was the beginning, middle, and end of the story, so that a harried reader could skim the headlines and know the news of the day.
This is because the paper already had your money. Nowadays, news sites don't make money until you click each story. A sad situation for readers.
I have read the article. I can make an attempt at an old-style headline. Something like, "International cooperation halted the depletion of the ozone layer 1989-2019." Less enticing, eh? Now you know whether you really care for the details.
Which brings me to another problem with the article: it could be a third as long. This was a general problem even pre-internet, moreso in magazines than newspapers, which William Zinnser pointed out in his book On Writing Well. The first few paragraphs can often be excised, with nothing lost. It's as if the writer is warming up to writing the article, out loud. First there is a lot of philosophy. Then there is what could pass as an encyclopedia entry for Ozone Layer. Then a human-interest story of the discovery of the hole. This has its place (like in an encyclopedia) but you need to bear your readers in mind, and you are doing them a favor if you omit information that most of your readers already know. No need to bring newborn babies up to speed with each article.
The headline isn't even accurate, because we have not "fixed" it. The damage stopped at the beginning of this century, but the article itself says that the layer won't completely recover until the end of this century.
'Related Geoengeneering'-Pickings: 'A Weight, suspended from a System of String where cutting one of the Strings would actually increase the Tensions make it move...'? (-;
Sometimes I look at stuff like this and sit in despair that I'm not learning anything that will let me work these kinds of problems while I work at a defense contractor maintaining 20+ year old code.
great resource on transformers, which underpin the openai breakthroughs (the "T" in GPT-3 stands for transformer): http://peterbloem.nl/blog/transformers
The field is young and unlike mature fields such as physics or mathematics it doesn't take a lifetime of study to master, yet. Neural nets are actually pretty simple at their core; seemingly too simple to work as well as they do.
It's entirely possible to learn this stuff to near state-of-the-art level with a year or two of self-directed study outside of work. All the research is published open access, the software is open source, there are many high quality datasets available, hardware access is simple and free through Colab, and there are dozens of online courses and lectures at every level from beginner all the way to the cutting edge, again all free.
Haha you are not alone as I do the same on an old CRM for non-profits. I'm thinking about going back to school to gain the missing math and science I need to get myself to a more challenging job. Boring business software just ain't fun. But it pays :)
The only person doing this mental chase here is you. Why don't you just come out and say what you mean?
If you're really this confrontational about "the color" black being tied to darkness since pre-history (not much of a stretch there) and the significance of darkness being the physical manifestation of something like "evil" (also since pre-history) EDIT: and why "evil" is "intimidating", then nobody should take your contributions to this discussion seriously.
EDIT: I just don't understand how your response of "if black is intimidating, why do they paint them tan for military use" is in any way an honest argument. Did you simply not even think of camouflage? There are more important tactical advantages in warfare than intimidation. And now I feel like I did the job that darkserside was trying to avoid.
Nope, you see I’ve been on the black isn’t evil argument for a while because I own various black colored guns. It’s a pretty common argument to say the black guns are scary yet nobody can explain why. So again, why do you think black makes it scary or intimidating?
I have, in fact if you see my replies to others you’ll see me point out that very thing. But people are going around saying the goal of painting it black is to be intimidating. If that were true then why doesn’t the military use the same tactic when they do want to look intimidating? This would imply it’s used for camo, like you said.
It’s not a race thing, don’t take it there because I most definitely am not.
No I’m sorry. We still don’t have a reason why grown adults are scared of a color and we can’t even talk about it without it becoming a race thing. What a world the democrats have made.
I didn't make it a race thing. With all due respect, which is very little based on your comportment in this discussion, kindly find another community to flame.
what exactly are you talking about? Read. nobody but you two are making it a race thing. It’s a simple question, why does the color black make something look intimidating. You said it first and now you’re trying to make it a race thing to avoid explaining why the color black is scary on a gun. If you can answer a non racial question about a color then perhaps you should grow up?
Let’s make this real simple for you two what makes a black gun more scary or dangerous than one painted pastel? A rational human would say there’s no difference. A gun is a gun. But you have a certain class of people claiming very interesting and dangerous things about the looks of items. It has nothing to do with color, nobody is overtly calling you a racist, it’s a question to find out why you think the way you do because maybe public education on why guns are black is warranted.
reply