mbauman

To a CS person, "ordering" is about the arrangement of a list. But pretty much everyone else will think about a *temporal* order of operations. And in that case it is indeed "starting" from the right or left.

It just gets confusing when you're dealing with lots of deferred/lazy operations.

I've been seeing the back-side of this as a mod at the Julia Discourse. Pagerank/SEO spam is ridiculously obvious and trivial to detect/block — links are all that matter. Many GEO spam posts are similarly obvious: someone posting about a cryptocurrency customer support hotline on a programming language forum is definitely spam. But recently spammers/scammers been using AI to _tailor_ posts to look much more authentic, posting "How to use Julia to analyze market statistics" referencing (without links!) a particular crypto exchange and then (sometimes) going back later to edit in phone numbers or the like.

What makes this even more painful is seeing all the good faith answers that such GEO posts spur from the community. It's far more abusive than SEO spam.

> what's the deal with calling depth thickness

It's almost as though the author thought about and cared about the content and exact words he chose. "Thick or Treat" and "Thickening agents" and "Slim pickings" even immediately evoking imagery of a thin slop gruel in my own head.

By using an unexpected word I think I thought more critically about it, in fact. Had the author used depth I would've immediately had more superficial imagery in my own head.

The main point is NIST is _downstream_ of CVE issuance. Yes, they can — and still do — add disputed/rejected tags to CVEs, but in many cases by then it's already "too late." The CVE has an ID and a lifespan of its own.

NIST does not and did-not/cannot/never-has unilaterally "retracted" CVEs or prevented their issuance.

But yes, NIST's situation is not good for the world. The services they provide are hugely valuable.

The problem I have is that there's no way to embed an "uncertainty" into EXIF metadata in a standard way. I just want some photos to be "Summer 1987" or "February 1976" or even "1981-1983"... but I _have_ to invent some complete timestamp down to the second and then just rely upon captions or comments.

But I generally know the dates far better than any AI could guess (based on ages of the individuals I know).

And then they submit them to a CNA and get a CVE assigned, and then _everyone_ needs to deal with the not-actually-a-vulnerability report, especially when the not-actually-triggerable-DOS gets assigned a "Critical" CVSS score from EUVD or NVD.

I loved synergy back in 2005 when it was _actually_ open source! It was probably my first open source contribution! But then it was enshittified and made impossible to build from source in order to support the commercial dreams.

> stochastic parrots thesis (if it has any empirically-predictive content at all

Did you read TFA? This is precisely one of the non-questions that she answers.

Well the comments tend to be superfluous "whats" (describing the code itself) instead of the more helpful "whys." And they're almost never the most useful "why nots".

I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that your "ton of random stories constantly being published about Native Americans apparently being secret geniuses with magical powers" are _themselves_ evidence of exactly the sort of unserious reporting that the researcher (NOT NBC) claims; they sideline and obscure the realities of the intellectual aspects.