According to polling, a healthy majority of Albertans and a healthy majority of Quebecois want to remain in Canada.

It’s certainly too late for separatists to turn the tide in AB before the “referendum to have a referendum” in less than 2 weeks from now.

A lot more could happen between now and 2028 in Quebec… But I still am skeptical.

Support for BQ in '95 was basically 50%. PQ today is like mid 30s (crowded field).

I’m concerned that provincial politicking is banging such a lazy drum. I’m not concerned today that the aggregate electorate of either province wants to leave Canada.

I like how the half of the board footprint is logic level shifters

You’re getting downvoted, but you’re right. This knife cuts both ways, and it far predates llms.

Any non trivial algorithm intended to rank is gameable.

This is the foundation of SEO. It’s how the Donald invaded reddit. It’s the fucking central pillar of modern propaganda dissemination.

They’re going to spend a ton of money to lock themselves into an ongoing arms race.

And if one is morality opposed to this type of pricing practice, I think one becomes morality obligated to do exactly what you described.

And honestly, I think you don’t even have to come out ahead for it to be worth it. If your LLM assessed price would be 1000, spending a full $200 on compute to game and $800 ticket is a wash. You SHOULD spend $300 to get an $800 ticket if that’s where the floor is. Because fuck em.

I understand what is happening.

I think that breaking a constant evaluated value into an expression that is still a constant comprised entirely of literals is bad.

Extract the constants (100 and 1) to NAMED constants if you wanna do this.

Edit: You also mentioned it might just be a side effect of a minifier. Maybe it is. I’ve got tons of grace if that’s the case, since the dev has little if any control. Be like if I was roasting someone for what a compiler did.

You’re obviously the js expert, so I’ll defer to you on expected minifier behavior, but there are 3 specific reasons that id be surprised (based on what I think a minifier should do)

• there is a defined variable that already exists “random”, i would any minifier worth it’s salt to make the variable name smaller

• since the expression (100 + 1 - 1) is a constant expression, I similarly would expect a minifier to reduce constant expressions to thier evaluated value (especially if the evaluated value is fewer characters than the expression) aka, just collapse to “100”

• there is still a ton of extraneous whitespace

(100 - 1 + 1) ??

How do you know the stage at the developer conference is level? The js speaker is drooling out of both sides of his mouth.

The crux of those scenarios you outlined doesn’t hinge on weather or not data is property. Their arguments are that it isn’t YOUR property.

That sounds interesting, especially your view on rulings being unchallengeable. Full disclosure im Canadian so our system has differences.

To me, the root cause of that tension really stems from what I view as an inappropriate use of the judicial as law writers. It’s politically convenient for elected officials to use the cover of some rulings to allow ambiguity to persist in the law.

I think the ultimate cause of this in the US system is the general consensus (which by my read is not the intention of the law) that your constitution is immutable. Rulings on constitutionality are especially important because your constitution is amended so infrequently.

But with any rulings, I think that they should actually be MORE ephemeral, not less, based on the amount of dissent between judges. If a ruling is 5-4, there is a strong argument that the underlying law is unclear. This type of split I think is better resolved by the demand that legislators update or amend the law to add clarity. Judges, as interpreters of the law, are useful in function as a type of “quality check”. A 5-4 ruling, I would argue, amounts to the judicial writing law in the absence of clarity.

A 9-0 ruling? Law is fine. 8-1, probably still pretty good.

Even on a 9-0, there is nothing STOPPING the legislative branch from re-writing law. It is thiers to write and rewrite.

I just think tight splits should trigger some mechanism which demands a law-based resolution to clear up the underlying ambiguity within a specified time frame.

I get why legislators were happy to avoid touching law about things like abortion and let SC rulings be thier cover… they’re elected. It is convenient and safe. But they’re not really doing thier jobs.

Anyhow, that’s my 0.02

Ok, yeah, this sounds reasonable to me.

This is still describing an ultimate judicial authority (aka, a “Supreme court”) just one with an alternative formulation of the conditions for which one serves on the court.

Original guy seemed to imply just getting rid of it as a concept entirely.

Im curious what the alternative to an ultimate judicial authority might look like?

Might be a poor comparison, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad way to present it to thier boss. If the analogy, however flawed, communicates the underlying idea to the listener, then it was effective.

The concept here is very related to why “ceci n’est pas un pipe” is/was compelling.

Oh yeah you’re right about the headline. I hyperfixated on the graph that was posted which was showing net. My b.

Not necessarily saying you’re wrong… Just pointing out your explanation isn’t making direct comparisons.

This chart is “net”, which is “approves minus dissaproves”, and it’s important that you can respond with “neither approves or didsaproves”.

So you can have a lower approval rating (32) with a higher NET approval rating, if the “neither approves or dissaproves” chunk is larger.

If a higher approval rating results in a lower net (which is what these numbers are), it generally means more “fence sitters” have definitively shifted to flat-out dissaproval.

So, haven’t looked at the data, just noticing your argument seems predicated on a partial understanding of the specific metric this reports on.

This is where I’m really fuzzy on the mechanics.

Any authentication is to establish an identity. At what point does that involve getting a unique id associated with an OS installation instance?

My original question is how the hardware id and ngrok get associated at all.

So, after getting frustrated and just going to sign up for an account myself, it looks like ngrok has options to sign is as a Google account, or sign in as a github account.

I’m guessing they picked github, and that’s why Microsoft had any visibility at all on the fact that they accessed a site that isn’t owned by Microsoft.

It still doesn’t answer the question of how the browser knows this id which is set at the os level. It still begs the question of what github authentication looks like differently between operating systems. Obviously a osx or Linux machine wouldn’t have that id at all. Is it part of the initial authentication request? Is there some kind of challenge and response?

This seems the most likely… but still I want clarity on the mechanism. An identifying token defined in the registry is being sent over the wire. That mechanic is pretty substantial, and I’m surprised a bigger fuss hasn’t been made about that. This is pretty far beyond conventional header fingerprinting.

From the article:

Microsoft’s records showed that at that exact same minute, a Windows device carrying GDID g:6755467234350028 had visited the ngrok signup page.

Why does Microsoft have a record that includes both the GDID and a web addresses? I am confused by this mechanism.

I think there are a lot of things at play here. Ultimately I don’t think you should, though.

The fact that you still want to tell them is suspicious. I think you’re not being honest with yourself. Your ulterior end game is a hope of some type of reciprocation. You haven’t moved on.

Just because (assuming it’s even true) a statistical model of a gender says “they probably would like it” is irrelevant. Would this individual like to hear it? It sounds like you don’t know. If you don’t know them well enough to anticipate how they would react, then I think it’s pretty safe to say they don’t know you well enough to receive the message “I used to love you” in a way that could ever come out as a net benefit to them.

I empathize immensely regarding your position. But as a 3rd party observer, don’t do it.

Yeah, I conceded that your call to action was correct.

Just wanted to add colour so people understand the mechanics at play. When you understand them, it lets people evaluate other things, without needing you to tell them what to do.

For example, if your comprehension of these companies is that the companies are acting with the goal of profitability l, they would see something like a fast-track onto an index post IPO as a bid for legitimacy, some kind of ego play.

If you comprehend it as a beast that can only subsist on funding with no viable product, it entirely changes how you comprehend the post IPO index listing desire.

Counterpoint:

They already are losing money. They themselves do not project that they will be profitable until 2030. The idea that “smart people with spreadsheets won’t let them lose money” is obviously wrong because they have done nothing except lose money, ever.

They get thier operating capital from funding, not sales.

Now, I agree that the gambit is wrong. So you’re right. You’re just right for the wrong reason.

Funding is just the cash value of market optimism for the future of your product. High usage props up optimism. Social media IPOs were valued very much based on active users, the idea being that more users meant more opportunity for profit.

The more people actively using these tools, even if they’re just maliciously burning tokens, just add to the “active users” metric. Which makes funding easier. And funding is the ACTUAL way these companies “make thier money”.

Minors can legally own shares of a private company.

I’m not saying THIS child does… and out of EVERYONE on the list that kid is entirely morally absolved anyways by virtue of being a little kid.

But, they can own shares.