So, anyway, how do we make sure that our phones don't turn into a pumpkin on a set date? I suppose it's all shit long term, but at the very least I don't want to be forced to look for a solution before I need a new phone. So, what do you do? Can you just disable android updates somehow and it will solve the issue? Or it is already a ticking bomb that will be activated on the set date no matter what?
I remember the story of it being made, and I seem to even remember there was some very generous bounty attached, but I never got the point of it. I mean, honestly, ISBN is a pretty problematic thing on its own, especially today, when self-publishing is common, and especially for a web-library that is collecting scans of everything somewhat notable that ever was out there. But even accepting it as a main entity, because that's what we've got right now, what does this visualization achieve? What does it show? You cannot really find a book using it, I mean, any more specifically than "some random book probably in a given language". I was kinda surprised when this visualization was declared a winner of that particular bounty/contest.
There's a bit of an issue with the linked deployment (in my opinion). In the most zoomed out view you should see the first layer of blocks - very big blocks titled "English language", "French language", "German language". See https://phiresky.github.io/isbn-visualization/ maybe. That makes it a bit easier to read.
The point of the visualization is showing different attributes of books in the space of ISBNs. ISBNs correlate with country, publisher, and release date, that's why using it as a space is useful. You can clearly see the history of when blocks were created, which blocks are rarer than others (present in fewer libraries), and (on the AA hosting) which blocks are more present in AA vs not.
In any case though, yes ISBNs as spatial data are clearly not perfect. Do you have any suggestions that would order the 100 million data points better?
exactly, that map looks like a mess of random blocks...
big blocks are registration groups (countries) and squares inside are registrants (publishers). like a hierarchy.
this visualisation helped me to put pieces together - https://vectree.io/c/isbn
All this fearmongering about decision markets lately is really annoying. If you don't like gambling — just don't gamble and shut the fuck up. It's not for you to decide if gambling is good or bad for me. If I am stupid enough to bet anything on an outcome that clearly depends on a person who could, potentially, be betting as well — it's my problem, not yours.
I've been active and profitably trading in prediction markets for a long time now, but I think this perspective is also not helpful.
Prediction markets exist within the laws and institutions of society to be able to function, and the public should debate and discuss how they're regulated. Problem gamblers do present a negative externality where third parties can bear the cost, especially when they have dependents.
Gambling outside of equities and securities is a negative externality. (Investment in startups, goods, etc. makes the economy spin. Investing in what hoop a ball goes through does no good at all.)
This puts plenty of people who shouldn't gamble into debt and lowers their societal fitness.
The other side of the gamble is probably losing on average too. Only the house and infrequent insiders win.
These private companies are fleecing our economy's dynamicity without reinvesting it in aligned positive externalities.
It's a cancer.
At least the lottery goes to education, in theory. My college was subsidized by the lotto, so there's that.
Kalshi and PolyMarket aren't doing anything positive.
It is not for you to decide what one should or shouldn't do. Plenty of people want to gamble, and don't give a fuck of what you think they should or shouldn't do. And they are right: it's none of your fucking business.
Kalshi and PolyMarket are doing something absolutely wonderful for those people (i.e. the only people who should care about these "prediction markets" at all): they actually make betting fair, which was impossible before. It is not impossible now, because in fact there are much better decentralized markets than these (basically all you need to make a completely decentralized betting platform are Ethereum contracts), but they are handier to use and hence more popular. But it was impossible with traditional gambling, where a bookmaker can set any odds and reject any bets.
> It is not for you to decide what one should or shouldn't do.
What's the limit?
Murder? Taking fentanyl? Selling fentanyl? Shitting on the sidewalk? Taking photos of kids in public? Screaming fire in a theater? Defamation? Misleading poor people into thinking they can get ahead by spending their savings?
If there was no limit to what I should or should not do, I could just kill everyone I disagree with and take their money. But we know that's preposterous.
Here's the thing though: in aggregate, that's exactly what this is. Taking money from poor and undereducated people is like killing them. It's stealing their lives, indebting them, making them less fit, putting them on a lower trajectory for life. Killing their chances.
That's about the biggest fucking negative externality big tech has introduced to the world. And for what? To make a handful of people rich?
This does nothing for society. It's worse than crypto.
> Plenty of people want to gamble, and don't give a fuck of what you think they should or shouldn't do. And they are right: it's none of your fucking business.
Plenty of people want to rape kids, and it is our business to stop them. This argument is bunk.
A low level of gambling was okay because there was a controlled lever on it. Only a handful of casinos existed, and the government had the monopoly on the lottery program.
Now anyone can do it anytime. That is not good for our economy.
This is not a harmless activity. People are losing their financial well-being. Becoming addicted. Needing to fix their debt by becoming more in debt.
People getting exiting the workforce as productive members of society because they lose their shirt. That is not good for individuals or society.
We're damaging the robustness of our economy by allowing these entities to exist. They should be taxed at 100% of their gross revenue, and those funds should go to educating kids about statistics while they're young and impressionable.
It's also a bit overblown. If you could rig a war, you would stand to make a lot more money playing the stock market than small potatoes prediction markets. A lot of money has been on the line based on which party wins elections even before prediction markets existed (see fracking or pipeline project approval as obvious examples).
It's good if they can share syntax. You use the same English words to ask Alice and Bob questions, but when you say "So, tell me, Alice…" you don't want Bob to answer you instead. Using another tool's config by default, making it difficult/impossible to use the dedicated config is the most annoying thing I can imagine. If that's what rg does, I guess that must be the reason I couldn't switch.
I don't remember why I didn't switch from ag, but I remember it was a conscious decision. I think it had something to do with configuration, rg using implicit '.ignore' file (a super-generic name instead of a proper tool-specific config) or even .gitignore, or something else very much unwarranted, that made it annoying to use. Cannot remember, really, only remember that I spent too much time trying to make it behave and decided it isn't worth it. Anyway, faster is nice, but somehow I don't ever feel that ag is too slow for anything. The switch from the previous one (what was it? ack?) felt like a drastic improvement, but ag vs. rg wasn't much difference to me in practice.
Totally agree with the author of rg here. Config names should be unambiguous. Anyway, must have been something else, then. As I've said, I cannot remember what was the specific problem, only that it wasn't quite compatible with the workflow I was used to, and now it'd take another full-in attempt to switch to figure out what was so annoying to me back then.
I was just trying to remember why I switched _to_ rg.
It's nice and everything, but I remember being happy with the tools before (I think i moved from grep to ack, then jumped due to perf to ag and for unremembered reasons to pt.)
It took me a while, but I remembered I ran into an issue with pt incorrectly guessing the encoding of some files[0].
I can't remember whether rg suffered from the same issue or not, but I do know after switching to rg everything was plain sailing and I've been happy with it since.
For me it was trying to add a filter to search CMake files to ag and then realizing that the code had some rather stupid design decisions that prevented it. I wrote a pull request that fixed enough things to add the filter, got ignored by the maintainer and later realized that other people had already written the same filter and were ignored too.
I can totally understand why. I tried fixing ag around the time Ripgrep was first published and once I learned about rg I never looked back.
On a related note, it's now ten years since an everyday tool written in Rust was released and Rust is still seen as a scary new language that might turn out to be a quick fad.
You don't need to confirm anything. You just configure it once to upload your runs that you record on a Garmin watch or whatever, and forget. It's not impossible to use Garmin watch without any online accounts and uploading your data anywhere, but as it is with all wearables today, they intentionally make your life harder for it. Not to mention that most people who run regularly use Strava or something equivalent to track your workouts anyway, so one really wouldn't think much about it, unless explicitly forced by officers to disconnect everything. And, honestly, given how easy it is to find an aircraft carrier (for god's sake, even a civilian can do that!), I doubt that it even worth it. Le Monde is just making cheap scandal out of nothing. As always.
Honestly, he kinda is a meme. I wouldn't recommend any of the movies. It's not like you've missed some grand piece of cinema that you have to be ashamed of and must fix it ASAP. It's the sheer volume of mediocre movies and the very distinct role of a guy who always kicks bad guy's asses using karate in all these movies. I mean, the fact that you've never seen something like Walker, Texas Ranger probably just means that you are under 30 years old, but by no means it's good TV series that everyone must see.
I am of the same opinion, and ultimately ArXiv becoming a journal that can prevent one from publishing a paper — no matter how junk it is — would pretty much kill its purpose. But I suppose that now when flooding the interned with LLM-generated garbage is almost endorsed by some satanic people, it is pretty much a security issue to have some sort of filter on uploads.
Now, honestly, I have no idea why would one spend resources on uploading terabytes of LLM garbage to arXiv, but they sure can. Even if some crazy person is publishing like 2 nonsense papers daily, it is no harm and, if anything, valid data for psychology research. But if somebody actually floods it with non-human-generated content, well, I suppose it isn't even that expensive to make ArXiv totally unusable (and perhaps even unfeasible to host). So there has to be some filtering. But only to prevent the abuse.
Otherwise, I indeed think that proper ranking, linking and user-driven moderation (again, not to prevent anybody from posting anything, but to label papers as more interesting for the specific community) is the only right way to go.
It's not that hard to make a mirror or arXiv. Basically, anybody who can pay for hosting (which, I suppose, isn't very cheap now when the whole world uses it). It's a problem to make users switch, because academia seems to have this weird tradition of resisting all practices that, god forbid, might improve global research capabilities and move forward the scientific progress. But then, if arXiv actually becomes unusable, I suppose they won't really have much choice than to switch?
And, FWIW, I do think that arXiv truly has a vast potential to be improved. It is currently in the position to change the whole process of how the research results are shared, yet it is still, as others have said, only a PDF hosting. And since the universities couldn't break out of the whole Elsevier & co. scam despite the internet existing for the 30 years, to me, breaking free from the university affiliation sounds like a good thing.
But, of course, I am talking only about the possibilities being out there. I know nothing about the people in charge of the whole endeavor, and ultimately in depends on them only, if it sails or sinks.
reply