boscillator

Why did anyone even try and make this? It's fascinating what incomputable functions people try to shoe-horn into being computable.

Applications thinking they should own the root of trust is one of my least favorite things in software. God help you if your IT department thinks they should MITM everything and now 8000 packages need there cert installed in some random location.

They have what appears to be a screenshot of an excel document (complete with sort and filter widgets), except I can select the text, so perhaps it's an embedded excel sheet inside a word doc?

Either way, I love it and I'm always excited to learn about what mundane functions the government and MS Office are keeping alive for society.

I wonder what counts as a complex theme? Surely that is a euphemism for something, but I can't figure out what it would be and certainly don't trust TikTok to do a good job of deciding what is too complex for the youth's minds.

The ruling seems fair and reasonable, and I'm surprised they couldn't come to the same conclusion without a court.

What is the point of predictive analytics for them? Surely they don't care about what one specific customer will do, only in aggregate? Since ML models can only learn from past aggregates, wouldn't traditional statistics on past transactions make more sense?

I believe that their are no multi-GNSS receivers certified for aviation, so Galileo, GLONASS and BeiDou are out.

> You can't make investors have a hard on for a ramp that doesn't connect to the cloud.

Someone more inclined toward fraud than me should figure out how to make a cloud connected ramp as a way to get VCs to fund more ramps.

> Suppose I want to work in a single place for all my contexts, both personal and professional.

This has always been my problem with adopting Emacs or Obsidian or any other app that purports to do this. Who are y'all working for that you can bring professional stuff onto the same system as personal stuff? I don't want my personal emails on my work computer, and my boss would be rather upset if I brought work emails onto my personal computer. I'd love one of these do everything apps that lets me tag and sync just stuff that ought to be synced.

Oops, thanks. Stupid dyslexia.

Yah, the government has a big problem with trying to do big upgrades when a ship-of-theseus would work. I suspect this can be traced all the way up to how congressional appropriations work and the acquisitions/sustainment distinction, in addition to usual resume-engineering and second-system-syndrome.

Even here, it can be hard to know what to cut. OCX kept getting funding because running a GPS ground segment is in the government's purview, and sometimes you need to update legacy systems. Obviously, OCX was still a disaster, and we still don't have a modern ground segment, but the answer isn't necessarily cutting programs, it's spending the money in those programs more wisely, and empowering civil servants to stop obvious contractor grift. Actually doing that is difficult and may require more money in the short term.

*edit: spelling

The real answer here is that configuring HTTPS clients to trust a self-signed cert (or signed by an internal CA) shouldn't be as difficult as it is. I find it extremely annoying that every programming language has it's own idea of where certificates should live instead of just checking the os trust store.

> detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.

Good luck sharing that information with Max Planck. It's amazing how robotically humans can act sometimes. I suppose this could be an AI or automated response, but it's just as likely it's someone following the letter of the law without using any critical thought.

> the right fix is not "handle every malformed case." ... [LLMs] will still attempt to handle now impossible errors.

This is the number one code smell from LLMs and I don't know why they are so obsessed with it. In python, it often comes as `hasattr` checks on types that are defined to have that attribute, in a code base that is fully type-checked.

Why do they do that? Is it from pre-training or re-enforcement? If that latter, can the labs please fix this?

Mostly unrelated, but what is going on with the "I specifically approve section ... of the terms and conditions" when you sign in without an account. Is this a new requirement somewhere?

Other than that, seems interesting! Simulink could always do with a competitor, although I'm always saying Simulink needs a text-based interface. Same signal flow programming model that supports scopes and continues time integrators, just with text instead of drag-and-drop.