xg15

This is true, but I think building an entire technology on top of the question of who can consume the resource as inefficiently as possible is still something else.

Weirdly, underutilization of hardware was never a problem before. In fact, wastefulness is so ingrained in programming culture that the previous hype - blockchain - was about an explicit race over who could waste the most computing power on nonsensical calculations.

Also, I'd be very surprised if the current rush to build datacenters everywhere is optimal usage of resources. How many companies are building datacenter commons and sharing with other companies to optimize resource usage?

> Two statements can be true

As I general point, because I keep seeing this line on HN: Of course they can in the general case, but more often than not, the reason why this line is written is because there is some tension or contradiction between the statements. In that case, understanding where the tension lies is IMO more useful than shrugging and deciding to "hold two contradictory thoughts in your head" like in 1984.

Sometimes it feels like a rhetoric device to "rescue" an opinion when the opposite opinion is hard to argue against.

> Explorer sets the current directory of the program to the directory containing the thing that you double-clicked

I found the linked article to informative and confirming my suspicion: "The thing that you clicked" doesn't have to be the executable - it could also be a document with the executable registered as launch handler, in which case the current directory will be the directory of the document.

Would be interesting to know how links and items in shell namespaces are handled.

> for(size_t i = count; i--; ) { /* find needle */ }

As someone who only writes C or C++ occasionally, I'd consider this a good submission for an obfuscated C contest.

It really does look simple at first glance.

Then you start to wonder what the stop condition is.

Then you realize the i-- is the stop condition.

Then you wonder how the whole thing works at all.

(The description explained the trick well, and the construct makes sense once you understand it, but I still think this is one example of something that is "too simple" and becomes cryptic)

After all the stuff you hear about undefined behavior, I'm also honestly surprised that wraparound on unsigned types is not undefined behavior.

Saw a TV panel on this a few weeks ago.

You know the "pro-datacenter" person was getting desperate when he tried to sell the construction work of building the datacenter as the "job growth".

On the moderator's remark that such jobs would be temporary, he got back with "oh no, datacenter construction can take several years, so it's not temporary!"

No further questions...

Still remembering the Kellerautomat from my CS class...

EDV - maybe a less glitzy term for "tech" - is still used occasionally by Gen-Xers.

> The President is the chief executive in charge of government operations, not the courts. If he’s acting outside his authority, you can sue him and then the courts can figure it out.

I love this. Yes, and then several years later, the courts can declare his order was in fact illegal when it's already far, far too late to reverse any of it.

That kind of "oversight" is no oversight at all. If you believe this is just how things should be, then you want a king with unrestricted power, not a president.

> There’s also this thing called the International System of Units, a scientific measurement deal that goes by its French acronym: SI.

That would probably one more reason for Trump and his supporters to choose that acronym...

I think in this case, it was rather cynical. The "free time" the workers got was because they were unemployed. The workers who were still employed of course had no additional leisure time, the added productivity went to the employer.

At this point I wonder if those aren't simply marketing shills or the usual kind of "pro-business" press articles that always push ridiculously optimistic takes on new technologies.

Reminds me of the old press pieces along "with the new machines, the workers won't have to do this tedious and dangerous work anymore and will have so much more free time!"

And free time they had...

Is there meaningful difference between handing back a wiped phone and handing back a new phone of the same model? So in that case, why not keep the un-wiped phone in possession of the court and allow attorneys access to it (with proper documentation) - and give the convict a new phone instead?

> avoid a giant prefix miss

I was wondering how feasible it is to modify the context, instead of just appending - e.g. to remove malformed tool calls and their error messages that would pollute the context otherwise.

Sure, you'd have to rebuild the KV cache and take a performance loss, but that might be acceptable if it happens rarely enough.

> especially with the newly proposed Dell bank account for kids that can only be used to invest in stocks

The ol' "The real evil overlord is just you and me" retort is a bit undermined by the existence of products like this one that actively constrain people's actions and pressure them to perpetuate the system. Like, who gave the order to design that product?

It's also not true. "Companies" on their own don't do anything. The operational decisions are made by CEOs and board members who do have a lot of leeway to decide how they want - and often do have an ideology they follow.

Shareholders are also not "you and me" in the common case - especially not with index funds, where you have zero agency to influence the market even despite being a shareholder on paper.

Significant amounts of shares are held by wealthy individuals or other companies with humans at the top - people who are in the same social group (or often the same individuals) as those in the C-suite.

At the level of wealth concentration we are in, I think talking about the "billionaire class" is more constructive than talking about "shareholders" and then noticing full of surprise that we all are shareholders.