-
pja
4 months ago
|
link
| on:
Ask crustaceans: Did your Android device just mysteriously auto-update apps?
Google can push whatever updates they like through the Google services layer on an Android phone: it wouldn’t surprise me if they’d do just that when there are security holes being actively exploited in the wild, even if the user has explicitly turned off updates on their phone.
-
Right. I am operating under the assumption that 1. Google did it and 2. They had some good reason.
But, I want details!
Hm, I found this… https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2018-04-01
And this https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/android-security-updates
But, neither seem to be the sort of place where I’d see google developers discussing whether or not to push updates.
Anyway, it doesn’t seem that an update to some specific app was pushed. It seems that the “auto update” feature was temporarily turned on, then off again.
-
Hmm, I don’t have an Android phone but out of the blue my Apple Watch gave me a notification that I needed to update. The patch notes say “This is a security update” and Apple doesn’t comment on security updates, and I can’t find anything in the news about it. Wonder if it’s related.
-
-
-
Seems like just an advertisement for the service that’s hosting this blog post.
-
Corporate blogs usually are (with some exceptions).
-
-
Maybe the price of backwards compatibility becomes too big at some point ? Also USB C , USB 3.x and USB PD being all “rolled” into a single can’t possibly help with the complexitiy.
If Nintendo can’t do USB PD + USB C + USB 3.x properyl ,they should have stuck with a proprietary connector.
-
they should have stuck with a proprietary connector
Strongly disagree. Maybe Nintendo should release a proprietary USB-C cable that mimics their dock without the bulkiness of their dock, but the ability to borrow a friend’s phone charger and recharge my Switch? The ability to just bring one charger with me, one that can charge my phone, my tablet, and my gaming console? That’s a really nice feature. I would take that over a proprietary cable that doesn’t work with anything else.
-
Running a proprietary protocol over a standard connector is a bad idea, because people will plug mismatched devices into each other and the possible outcomes are somewhere between nonfunctionality and starting fires.
It sounds like the Switch is just a very poor implementation of the standard protocol, so that reasoning only partly applies. It is certainly a convenience not to need multiple chargers, but it’s less of a convenience if some chargers can lock up your device. If Nintendo had no intention of interoperating with standard USB-C devices, they shouldn’t have used the connector; and if they did intend to interoperate, they should actually do so.
-
-
-
I started researching the GitHub APIs that would be relevant to implement something like this a few months ago, but I’m really hesitant to sink a lot of investment into GitHub and its accompanying monopoly in my free time.
I’ve moved a bunch of my personal projects over to GitLab, but they’ve been doing stupid stuff like refusing to render static repository content without whitelisting Javascript, or telling my my two-week-old browser is unsupported because it’s outdated, so … not a lot of motivation to invest in that ecosystem either.
-
This. I noticed the mandatory JS for rendering nonsense too. I really want to like GitLab, and have tried multiple times to use them as my main, but to me the UX is just inferior to GitHub. The UI is sluggish and feels very bloated.
It’s been a while since I’ve given up on GitLab for the time being, and have been self-hosting Gitea. Now Gitea uses JS too, but also works quite well without it. And it’s nowhere near as slow as GitLab.
-
but to me the UX is just inferior to GitHub.
Well, GitLab for all its faults doesn’t hijack my Emacs key bindings to do idiotic shit like “bold this thing in markdown” (which was already only two keystrokes to begin with; why are you adding a shortcut for something I never do on ctrl-b that I use all the time?) so I wouldn’t say GitLab has quite sunk to that level yet.
-
Interesting. That’s a fair point; though GitHub’s editor isn’t the first to do that. I hadn’t noticed it with GitHub mainly because I use Vimium in Firefox, Evil in Emacs, and bspwm; so I rarely use Emacs-style bindings but I agree that could be frustrating.
Does exwm’s simulation keys work around the issue, or does GitHub’s in-browser binding take precedence?
EDIT: There’s also
xkeysnail, though it does require running as root.EDIT2: It seems like running
xkeysnailas root may not be necessary if the user has access to input devices. On Arch (or any distro withsystemd >= 215) that can be achieved by adding the user to theinputgroup (see here and here).EDIT3: The Emacs-keybinding extension may be another option, though apparently it only works in macOS. There’s also shortkeys but I haven’t tried either one.
-
-
-
I just tried in the macOS Notes app and ctrl+b makes the text bold. The Pages app does the same, ctrl+b makes the text bold. These are two native text entry applications developed and provided by Apple themselves.
-
-
That’s the problem of your system then – the browser explicitly exposes Ctrl, Alt, Meta. If your keyboard does not offer these, either your browser, OS, or keyboard has to map between these and the actual keys.
Users on all other systems (aka 99.5% of users) expect Ctrl-B (or Ctrl-F) to create bold text.
-
-
-
-
So how do you suggest to do that without using heuristics on the useragent?
I’d be interested in your implementation of a JS function that returns the correct set of modifiers and keys to use for the bold shortcut. And which works reliably.
Currently, the browser doesn’t expose this, so everyone gets the most commonly used solution.
-
Currently, the browser doesn’t expose this, so everyone gets the most commonly used solution.
????
Note: On Macintosh keyboards, [.metaKey] is the ⌘ Command key.
MOD_KEY_FIELD = navigator.platform.startsWith('Mac') ? 'metaKey' : 'ctrlKey'; // lazy if (keyEvent.ctrlKey && ... // bare minimum for any self-respecting developer if (keyEvent[MOD_KEY_FIELD] && ...What I want to know is how you’re commenting from 1997. Just hang tight, in a couple years two nerds are gonna found a company called Google and make it a lot easier to find information on the internet.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100 - 99.5 != 12.8, your assumption is off by a factor of 25.
-
-
You’re right. Lord I’m an idiot.
-
-
Ctrl+bon my Mac goes back a character in both macOS Notes and Pages, as it does everywhere else.Cmd+bbolds text (as also it does everywhere else).In general, Macs don’t use the Ctrl key as a modifier too often (although you can change that if you want). They usually leave the
readlinekeybindings free for text fields. This seems to be by designThe standard key bindings are specified in
/System/Library/Frameworks/AppKit.framework/Resources/StandardKeyBinding.dict. These standard bindings include a large number of Emacs-compatible control key bindings…
-
-
-
-
If it was a rich text WYSIWYG entry, I’d be 100% agreed with you. (I would also be annoyed, but for different reasons.)
But this is a markdown input box. The entire point of markdown is to support formatted text which is entered as plain text.
-
-
-
-
It’d be great if we had a language server protocol extension for code review + a gerrit backend. I started taking a look at this a few months ago (I work mostly in Gerrit now) but didn’t have the bandwidth for actually prototyping it. It seems like an obviously good idea, though having to use git hampers some of the possibilities.
-
-
This might be worth it, if all I did was
cd’ing between directories, and I really had to do it fast and often, but generally saying that using the universally accepted way of moving around the file system, which works on Linux, Mac OS, BSD, Plan9 and even Windows (if I am not mistaken), is a “waste of ones time” seems to be a bit of an exaggeration, especially if most shells have “tricks” like:cd ~/Development/project/ mkdir ../new_project cd $_ cd -to do the same as the example mention in the article.
one could also have a shell function chat creates and changes the working directory at once.
So before one starts worrying about the number of characters one types, and starts installing, non standard, external tools (especially if it starts python every time it’s executed), I think it would be wiser to learn how to use one’s shells properly, or at the very least to type more efficiently, if one is in fact convinced that changing directories is the bottleneck in ones workflow.
-
Important point: shells already have a lot of optimization for ‘cd’. (Not to mention pushd & friends, even!)
I worry about tools like the one mentioned in OP, which have fuzzy optimizations based on use, & therefore optimize specifically for well-worn paths. Our entire nervous system already optimizes our responses for well-worn paths; I feel like we ought to compensate for it, and avoid tools that try to keep us in a rut.
Since having two directories with similar names that are accessed almost equivalently often will produce far more typing with this tool (vs tab completion, which – at least in many shells – will only complete up to a divergence point on groups of files with shared prefixes, and therefore eliminates only unambiguously-wasted keystrokes, while working with every command), the rut-grade here is higher: not only do we use the same directories, but it becomes too much effort to have similarly named directories even when they are descriptive, and we must keep a mental tally of how often we visit particular directories with particular prefixes in order to estimate how many letters we should be using to cd! Every time we go into the wrong directory accidentally, we compound the error, and if we switch from one project (with associated directory) to another (with a similarly-named associated directory) we must spend time avoiding using this tool in order to re-train it.
-
No it’s not an exaggeration, because that’s not what I said. If you somehow miraculously move into a completely different set of directories every day while you work, I’m honestly impressed. You must do a lot of greenfield work.
I spend a lot of time in similar directories and sub-directories for the same projects. So this in fact, without exaggeration, saving me a lot of time. And
cd'inginto these same directories and sub-directories is in fact a gigantic waste of my time.It’s kind of amazing how you and some other commenters are focusing so hard on the number of characters I’ve used to demonstrate how much more efficient AutoJump is.
Did you use the tool? You spent about three times the amount of time it would take to install it to opine on the potential slowness it may have because it’s written in Python. It has a Bash version.
But yeah, we could count beans and figure out all the other potential bottlenecks in your workflow before we address this one. The thing is, this is my blog post about my workflow, and a bottleneck I’ve encountered a lot through the last ten years. I’m sure (from the reception) that it’s going to help a lot of people with similar problems.
But thank you for suggesting I’m not using my shell properly, that’s really helpful. :-)
-
First off, I missed that this was an authored article, so I was a bit more critical than I would have been otherwise. I want to apologize if you were insulted or offended by my article.
But to be fair, you did say that cd is a “Wasting Your Time”, it’s the first thing I read… And I have to admit that this isn’t quite my use case, since I tend to work within emacs more than a classical shell environment, and my servers don’t necessary have python or bash installed. But I did miss the bash version, I’ll try it out, but I took your article to give a good overview, all I wanted to say was that I really didn’t belive that “cd” was the real bottleneck – for most people – which is implied by the way you address the reader.
It’s kind of amazing how you and some other commenters are focusing so hard on the number of characters I’ve used to demonstrate how much more efficient AutoJump is.
It seemed that this was your argument, that AutoJump saves characters, and that for that reason, it’s worth using. My reaction was just that it seemed like a wierd metric to measure “efficiency”.
But thank you for suggesting I’m not using my shell properly, that’s really helpful. :-)
Ok, instead of “properly”, one could also say to it’s fullest given potential. I know what one can already do with what one has, or as some people say “comes out of the box”, instead of installing addition software. But it doesn’t have to mean anything, since I only have an experience of just over 5 years with all these things.
-
-
I tend to agree. I spend much of my time switching between different systems that I don’t own, and every few months I get handed a brand new system with none of my previous customizations. Because of this I’ve taken the time to get comfortable with the defaults. I don’t have a bashrc, I don’t have a vimrc, I use screen instead of tmux because my machines don’t have tmux. And as it turns out, you can get a lot done with the defaults.
Then again these days I’m the kind of person who prefers default settings anyway… I had an Android phone that I would heavily customize and as soon as I got it how I wanted it, the developer would stop supporting a plugin for my launcher and now I have to do it all over again. I’d customize my Linux shell and then there’d be some new best thing (stop using screen, switch to tmux, stop using bash, switch to zsh) that I just had to install and switch my workflow to. I even switched to dvorak instead of qwerty because it’s better. But then I found I couldn’t use someone else’s machine, and they couldn’t use mine. And when I got a new one, it would take ages to get it set up again unless I learned even more tooling to save my configurations. Instead of doing work, I was fiddling with the tooling. All the time saved by the better tools cost even more time in configuration and learning a new workflow.
Over the years I’ve decided that it’s not worth it to me, and now I feel a zen-like calm knowing that I can log into any machine and all of my favorite tools will already be there.
That being said, I love the idea of this project, and past-me would have been all over it. Though the headline is a little hyperbolic I think there’s a target audience for it, even if I’m not part of that audience.
-
-
The initially targetted device is the Nokia N900
Is there any other hardware from 2009 that still has this much development effort targeted at it? Pretty incredible lifespan, I think.
-
jlarocco
edited
5 months ago
|
link
| on:
I trained fake news detection AI with >95% accuracy, and almost went crazy
This seems misguided and probably impossible.
News, by definition, is about new and recent things. If I say, “There’s a new forest fire near Napa right now,” there’s no way for a computer to fact check that using training data. At best it can correlate with other sources, but that depends on finding trustworthy sources in the first place, which obviates the need for the detector.
-
That’s a better option, honestly. Having an AI correlate multiple data sources together to find the truth between them would be just as easy as training a machine learning algorithm to see how “newsy” the information sounds.
I think it’d be valuable to have an automatic correlation between news sources where the site red-lines ideas that one journalistic outfit mentions but isn’t backed up by the others. That’d root out fake news pretty quick (or at the very least find the consensus viewpoint).
-
-
To quote another HN comment:
LIDAR aside, computer vision and a raw video feed is more than enough to have prevented this collision.
Exactly! Engineers designing autonomous cars are required to account for low-visibility conditions, even way worse than what this video shows (think hail, rain, dust, etc.). This was easy! And yet the car made no signs of slowing down.
EDIT: twitter comments like this pain me. People need to be educated about the capabilities of autonomous cars:
She is walking across a dark road. No lights even though she has a bike. She is not in a cross walk. Not the car’s fault.
Yes it was the car’s fault. This is shocking, extraordinary behavior for an autonomous car.
-
-
In reality, both the pedestrian and the car (and Uber) share some responsibility. You shouldn’t cross a four lane road at night wearing black outside of a crosswalk. A human driver is very unlikely to see you and stop. Not blaming the victim here, just saying it’s easier to stay safe if you don’t do that. However, the promise of autonomous cars with IR and LIDAR and fancy sensors is that they can see better than humans. In this case, they failed. Not to mention the human backup was very distracted, which is really bad.
From the video I don’t think a human would have stopped in time either, but Uber’s car isn’t human. It should be better, it should see better, it should react better. Automatic collision avoidance is a solved problem already in mass-market cars today, and Uber failed it big time. Darkness is an excuse for humans, but not for autonomous cars, not in the slightest.
She should still be alive right now. Shame on Uber.
-
You can’t conclude that someone would not have stopped in time from the video. Not even a little. Cameras aren’t human eyes. They are much much worse in low visibility and in particular with large contrasts; like say those of headlights in the dark. I can see just fine in dark rooms where my phone can’t produce anything aside from a black image. It will take an expert to have a look at the camera and its characteristics to understand how visible that person was and from what distance.
-
From the video I don’t think a human would have stopped in time either, but Uber’s car isn’t human.
Certainly not when distracted by a cell phone. If anything, this just provides more evidence that driving while distracted by a cell phone, even in an autonomous vehicle, is a threat to life, and should be illegal everywhere.
-
Just for everyone’s knowledge you’re 8 times as likely to get in an accident while texting, that’s double the rate for drinking and driving.
-
He was not driving.
He was carried around by a self driving car.
I hope that engineers at Uber (and Google, and…) do not need me to note that the very definition of “self driving car” is a huge UI flaw in itself.
That is obvious to anyone who understand UI, UX or even just humans!
-
-
No, she was not.
Without this incident, you would have seen soon a TV spot precisely with a (hot) business woman looking at the new photos uploaded on Facebook by her family. With a voice saying something like: ’we can bring you to those you Like”.
The fact that she was paid to drive a prototype does not mean she was an experienced software engineer trained to not trust the AI and to keep continuous control of the car.
And indeed the software choosed the speed. At that speed the human intervention was impossible.
Also the software did not deviate, despite the free lane beside and despite the fact that the victim had to traversate that lane, so there was enough time for a computer to calculate several alternative trajectories or even simply to alert the victim via light signaling or sounds.
So the full responsibility must be tracked back to people at Uber.
The driver was just fooled to think that he could trust the AI by an stupidly broken UI.
And indeed the driver/passenger reactions were part of the Uber’s test.
-
Looking at your phone while riding in the drivers seat is a crime for a reason. Uber’s AI failed horribly and all their cars should be recalled, but also the driver failed. If the driver had not been looking at their phone literally any action at all could have been taken to avoid the accident. It’s the responsibility of that driver to stay alert with attention on the road not looking at your phone or reading a book or watching a film, plane pilots do it every single day. Is their attention much more diminished? Yes of course it is. Should we expect literally 0 attention from the “driver”, absolutely no we should not.
-
Do you realize that the driver/passenger reactions were part of the test?
This is the sort of self driving car that Uber and friends want to realize and sell worldwide.
And indeed I guess that the “driver” behaviour was pretty frequent among the prototypes’ testers.
And I hope somebody will ask Uber to provide in court the recording of all the tests done so far to prove that they did not know drivers do not actually drive.
NO. The passenger must not be used as a scapegoat.
This is an engineering issue that was completely avoidable.
The driver behaviour was expected and desired by Uber
-
You’ve gotta stop doing this black and white nonsense. Firstly stop yelling. I’m not using the passenger as a scapegoat so I don’t know who you’re talking to. The way the law was written it’s abundantly clear that this technology is to be treated as semi autonomous. That does not mean that Uber is not negligent. If you are sitting in a driver’s seat and you’re watching harry potter while your car drives through a crowd of people you should be found guilty of negligence independent of any charges that come to both the lead engineers and owners of Uber. You have a responsibility to at least take any action at all to prevent deaths that otherwise may be at no fault of your own. You can’t just lounge back while your car murders people, and in the same respect when riding in the drivers seat your eyes should not be on your phone, period.
Edit: That image is of a fully autonomous car, not a semi-autonomous car. There is actually a difference despite your repeated protestations. Uber still failed miserably here, and I hope their cars get taken off the road. I know better than to hope their executives will receive any punishment except maybe by shareholders.
-
I guess you are not an engineer, Nor a programmer.
This is simply an engineering view about UI and UX (that actually are part of my daily job).
There’s no way that a human used to see a car drive correctly for hours will keep continuous control of the car without driving.
The human brain notoriously does not work that way.
If I drive I keep continuous attention and control of the car. If somebody else drive, I do not.Also I’m stating that Uber was trying to see if people can trust autonomous cars.
I’m stating that the incindent was not the first time a tester was recorded while looking at the phone during self drive and that Uber knew that and expected that.-
I guess you are not an engineer, Nor a programmer.
This isn’t the first time you’ve pulled statements out of a hat as if they are gospel truth without any evidence and I doubt it will be the last. I think your argument style is dishonest and for me this is the nail in the coffin.
-
-
If there is “no way” a human can do this, then we’ve certainly never had astronauts pilot a tiny spacecraft to the moon without being able to physically change position, and we certainly don’t have military pilots in fighter jets continuously concentrating while refueling in air on missions lasting 12 hours or more… or… or…. truck drivers driving on roads with no one for miles…or…
Maybe Uber is at fault here for not adequately psychologically screening, and training its operators for “scenarios of intense boredom.”
-
You are talking about professionals specifically trained to keep that kind of concentration.
And even a military pilot won’t maintain concentration on the road if her husband is driving and she knows by experience that his trustworthy.I’m talking about the actual Uber’s goal here, which is to build “self driving cars” for the masses.
It’s just a stupid UI design error. A very obvious one to see and to fix.
Do you really need some hints?
- Remove the car’s control from the AI and turn it into something that enhance the driver’s senses.
- Make it observes the driver’s state and forbid to start in case of he’s drunk or too tired to drive
- Stop it from starting if any of its part is not working properly.
This way the responsibility of an incident would be of the driver, not of Uber’s board of directors (unless factory defects, obviously).
-
You’re being adversarial just to try to prove your point, which we all understand.
You are talking about professionals specifically trained to keep that kind of concentration. And even a military pilot won’t maintain concentration on the road if her husband is driving and she knows by experience that his trustworthy.
A military pilot isn’t being asked (or trained) to operate an autonomous vehicle. You’re comparing apples and oranges!
I’m talking about the actual Uber’s goal here, which is to build “self driving cars” for the masses.
Yes, the goal of Uber is to build a self driving car. We know. The goal of Uber is to build a car that is fully autonomous; one that allows all passengers to enjoy doing whatever it is they want to do: reading a book, watching a movie, etc. We get it. The problem is that those goals, are just that, goals. They aren’t reality, yet. And, there are laws in which Uber, and its operators must continue to follow in order for any department of transportation to allow these tests to continue–in order to build up confidence that autonomous vehicles are as safe, or (hopefully) safer than already licensed motorists. (IANAL, nor do I have any understanding of said laws, so that’s all I’ll say there)
It’s just a stupid UI design error. A very obvious one to see and to fix.
So, your point is that the operator’s driving experience should be enhanced by the sensors, and that the car should never be fully autonomous? I can agree to that, and have advocated for that in the past. But, that’s a different conversation. That’s not the goal of Uber, or Waymo.
The reason a pedestrian is dead is because of some combination of flaws in:
- the autonomous vehicle itself
- a distracted operator
- (apparently) a stretch of road with too infrequent cross walks
- a pedestrian jaywalking (perhaps because of the previous point)
- a pedestrian not wearing proper safety gear for traveling at night
- an extremely ambitious engineering goal of building a fully autonomous vehicle that can handle all of these things safely
… in a world where engineering teams use phrases like, “move fast and break things.” I’m not sure what development methodology is being used to develop these cars, but I would wager a guess that it’s not being developed with the same rigor and processes used to develop autopilot systems for aircraft, or things like air traffic controllers, space craft systems, and missile guidance systems…
-
… in a world where engineering teams use phrases like, “move fast and break things.” I’m not sure what development methodology is being used to develop these cars, but I would wager a guess that it’s not being developed with the same rigor and processes used to develop autopilot systems for aircraft, or things like air traffic controllers, space craft systems, and missile guidance systems…
Upvoted for this.
I’m not being adversarial to prove a point.
I’m just arguing that Uber’s board of directors are responsible and must be accountable for this death.
-
Nobody here is arguing that the board of directors should not be held accountable. You’re being adversarial because you’re bored is my best guess.
-
-
Very well-said on all of it. If anyone is wondering, I’ll even add to your last point what kind of processes developers of things like autopilots are following. That’s things like DO-178B with so much assurance activities and independent vetting put into it that those evaluated claim it can cost thousands of dollars per line of code. The methods to similarly certify the techniques used in things like deep learning are in the protoype phase working on simpler instances of the tech. That’d have had to do rigorous processes at several times the pace and size at a fraction of the cost of experienced companies… on cutting-edge techniques requiring new R&D to know how to vet.
Or they cut a bunch of corners hacking stuff together and misleading regulators to grab a market quickly like they usually do. And that killed someone who, despite human factors, should’ve lived if the tech (a) worked at all and (b) evaluated against common, road scenarios that could cause trouble. One or both of these is false.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The car does not share any responsibility, simply because it’s just a thing.
Nor does Uber, which again is a thing, a human artifact like others.
Indeed we cannot put in jail the car. Nor Uber.
The responsibility must be tracked back to people.
Who is ultimately accountable for the AI driving the car?
I’d say the Uber’s CEO, the board of directors and the stock holders.
If Uber was an Italian company, probably the the CEO and the boars of directors would be put in jail.
-
Not blaming the victim here
People often say this when they’re partly blaming the victim to not seem overly mean or unfair. We shouldn’t have to when they do deserve partial blame based on one fact: people who put in a bit of effort to avoid common problems/risks are less likely to get hit with negative outcomes. Each time someone ignores one to their peril is a reminder of how important it is to address risks in a way that makes sense. A road with cars flying down it is always a risk. It gets worse at night. Some drivers will have limited senses, be on drugs, or drunk. Assume the worst might happen since it often does and act accordingly.
In this case, it was not only a four lane road at night the person crossed: people who live in the area on HN said it’s a spot noticeably darker than the other dark spots that stretches out longer. Implication is that there are other places on that road with with more light. When I’m crossing at night, I do two to three things to avoid being hit by a car:
(a) cross somewhere where there’s light
(b) make sure I see or hear no car coming before I cross.
Optionally, (c) where I cross first 1-2 lanes, get to the very middle, pause for a double check of (b), and then cross next two.
Even with blame mostly on car & driver, the video shows the human driver would’ve had relatively little reaction time even if the vision was further out than video shows. It’s just a bad situation to hit a driver with. I think person crossing at night doing (a)-(c) above might have prevented the accident. I think people should always be doing (a)-(c) above if they value their life since nobody can guarantee other people will drive correctly. Now, we can add you can’t guarantee their self-driving cars will drive correctly.
-
Well put. People should always care about their own lifes.
And they cannot safely assume that others will care as much.However note that Americans have learned to blame “jaywalking” by strong marketing campaigns after 1920.
Before, the roads were for people first.
-
I just saw a video on that from “Adam Ruins Everything.” You should check that show out if you like that kind of stuff. Far as that point, it’s true that it was originally done for one reason but now we’re here in our current situation. Most people’s beliefs have been permanently shaped by that propaganda. The laws have been heavily reinforced. So, our expectations of people’s actions and what’s lawful must be compatible with those until they change.
That’s a great reason to consider eliminating or modifying the laws on jaywalking. You can bet the cops can still ticket you on it, though.
-
-
-
In reality, both the pedestrian and the car (and Uber) share some responsibility.
I’ve also seen it argued (convincingly, IMO) that poor civil engineering is also partially responsible.
-
-
And every single thing you listed is mitigated by just slowing down.
Camera feed getting fuzzy ? Slow down. Now you can get more images of what’s around you, combine them for denoising, and re-run your ML classifiers to figure out what the situation is.
ML don’t just classify what’s in your sensor feeds. They also give you numerical measures for how close your feed is to the data they previously trained on. When those measures decline,, it could be because the sensors are malfunctioning. It could be rain’/dust/etc. It could be a novel untrained situation. Every single one of those things can be mitigated by just slowing down. In the worst case, you come to a full stop and tell the rider he needs to drive.
-
-
I’m coming from Rails and learning Elixir/Phoenix from scratch as my first functional language. If anyone has any tips/tricks that helped them move from Rails to Phoenix or Ruby to Elixir, I’m still compiling good resources. I’m not actually a very good programmer, so 1:1 comparisons between like “this is Ecto, it’s like ActiveRecord but instead of X you’d use Y” or “if you liked these gems, try this in Elixir” would be amazing.
-
… horrifying? Sorry, this is super rough.
-
The intended audience is people who need to choose a licence and have no idea what the relevant choices are.
There might be additional specific requirements, which make the choice harder or easier. For example, if you want to submit your code to the D standard library, you must use the Boost licence. For the wizard, I do not care for such specific constraints.
The goal is not to provide an overview over all licences.
Care to elaborate what horrifies you the most?
-
Yeah it says it’s a wizard but I’m not seeing any way to answer the questions and return a suggestion. Maybe it doesn’t work on mobile Safari? Looks more like a short FAQ.
-
-
-
FWIW, Apple and Microsoft are going to integrate f.lux like features into their desktop OSes soon. I know the Insider builds of Windows has the feature. iOS has had night shift for a while, and now thats coming to macOS.
-
Linux has redshift [ http://jonls.dk/redshift/ ]
-
Thank you for the reminder to blog my wrapper script with cloudiness adjustment.
-
-
For those of you with Amazon fire tablets, this is built into their OS as well. It’s also possible to change the screen temperature in the graphics card settings for AMD cards if you are having trouble getting f.lux to work on multiple monitors on pre-10 windows versions.
-
I’ve wondered on the Fire tablets how effective it really is. I’ve tried the built in Blue Shade and it makes everything very red, uncomfortably so. I found Twilight more comfortable to look at, but still not as comfortable as f.lux on a laptop or Night Shift on an iPhone. I’ve actually found f.lux to be the best that I’ve tried.
-
-
-
-
-
I got the watch, and was pretty excited about it, when it first came out. A few months ago I realized I really only used it to track calories when I work out, which I think it’s probably not good at, and as a timer. Oh, and I changed the color of the hands. The app story is pretty sad; I used Authy a few times, but it takes so long to hook up to the phone, it would be much quicker and easier to get the phone out.
I sort of stopped wearing it a few months ago. Not a conscious thing, I just don’t get much value out of it. I think I’d rather have a decent watch, but apparently I’d rather not have a watch at all. I guess I represented “blue ocean” for them… but I’m not going to make the mistake twice.
-
I just don’t get the use cases for a smart-watch in the first place. You know what I don’t want? I don’t want notifications on yet another goddamn device. Biomonitoring is mildly interesting, but hardly something I’d use (my calorie counter is “am I hungry?” and my workout monitor is “do I feel like falling over and dying yet?”).
Like… what would one actually use a smartwatch for?
-
I think a smart watch could be pretty neat when I’m skiing, no need to take my phone out and risk dropping it from the chairlift and I wouldnt need to take my gloves off at -30 celcius to check the time.
Though I’m highly sceptical of the batteries ability to survive -30 celcius
-
If the watch is -30C, you’re suffering major frostbite. When it’s nestled up against your arm and partially covered by your gloves/coat, it should stay pretty warm.
-
-
-
-
Another anecdota: My wife wears hers every day, and absolutely loves it.
On the few occasions when she accidentally leaves the house without it, she reports that not having it is inconvenient.My guess is she appreciates the fact that notifications about messages, alarms, alerts, etc, appear on her wrist, without her having to get her phone out of her purse and look at it every couple of minutes.
-
I don’t own an Apple Watch, but I’ve occasionally had the feeling that I would want such a thing for this reason: it sure would’ve been nice to get this half-second of information without pulling out my phone. Although admittedly, in probably 80% of these cases for me personally, the information in question is the time, a use-case for which I hear wrist-based technology has long been available.
-
That makes sense. It’s inconvenient for my wife to fish her phone out too, and often if she does, she leaves it someplace else in the house. But she’ll never wear a watch. In my case, I have the phone in my pocket anyway. I’d think that the notifications would be less intrusive, but when I go into a meeting I have to fiddle with the watch more than the phone and I usually silence the phone anyway because I don’t trust the two devices to figure it out. Also, I have noticed that sometimes the connection between the watch and the phone goes out and my phone goes off anyway, so the reliability isn’t so high that I can take it for granted.
I had a Pebble a few years ago, and I liked that in the car I could glance at my wrist to see if a text was worth responding to. But I have a newer car now that reads texts to me aloud, so this use case left about as quickly as it came.
-
-
-
I noticed that this goofball quoted himself from Twitter a lot. That’s pretty thin beer.
-
-
-
It’s a content marketing strategy. The idea is that you see his tweets and decide it’d be worth it to follow him on Twitter. Just a link to Twitter doesn’t put those tweets in your face, and 140 characters isn’t enough space to compel to you follow him.
-
-
It’s Apple navel-gazing, what did you expect–quality content?
-
-
Git is horribly broken
I hear this sentiment a lot, but I’ve never heard a detailed argument as to why or how it’s broken from people who have invested time into learning it. I use it daily even when working on solo projects. While it had an initial learning curve and caused a few headaches while diving in, now that I grok it pretty well I can’t think of a better way to implement most of its functionality. Are there any git detractors that have used git extensively here who’d like to weigh in with git’s downfalls or better ways to implement a distributed version control system?
On a side note, if one’s frustration is with git in the command line, magit is phenomenal and is a good enough reason in itself to install emacs.
-
Are there any git detractors that have used git extensively here who’d like to weigh in with git’s downfalls or better ways to implement a distributed version control system?
I use Git every day but I think the model could be better. I think the work in patch theory is useful:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/~zooko/badmerge/simple.html
https://pijul.org/documentation/model/#why-care-about-patch-theory
For example:
Pijul lets you describe your edits after you’ve made them, instead of beforehand.
-
I think if you think people who struggle with git won’t struggle with emacs, you are about to be disappointed. Git has some rough edges with ux, and this is only made worse by the fact that the problem it solves isn’t trivial to understand. That being said I think the author is wrong, people will use git despite its usability shortfalls. requiring “always connected to the internet” is a fundamental misunderstanding of why git is presently popular, and since the author is investing in this direction they are poised to lose a lot of money. I genuinely can’t imagine a non-opensource VCS toppling git, either it’s just silly.
-
I hear this sentiment a lot, but I’ve never heard a detailed argument as to why or how it’s broken from people who have invested time into learning it.
There have been papers about that. They were discussed previously along with the VCS built to adress the shortcomings:
-
-
Gitless’s authors main complaint is that Git’s interface is conceptually complex, Gitless reduces the API and combines some of the underlying concepts in Git. It seems like a reasonable goal although I haven’t actually used Gitless myself so I can’t really give a first hand account on if it’s successful. In any case, it seems reasonable to build a functional system by some criteria on top of a broken system by that same criteria.
-
-
-
-
-
while I think git is great at solving a complex problem and aside from the command line being inconsistent, the man pages have been awful for someone not knee deep in the nuances of how it works. For example, the man page of a rebase use to be laughably obtuse at best. It has gotten much better though as now it reads:
git-rebase - Reapply commits on top of another base tip, which is about as succinct and clear as you can be for a complex feature.
-
-
As someone who uses git a lot and has spent time doing fancy tricks with it:
- The staging area is inconsistent (in particular in how it interacts with stash) and not useful enough to be worth the complexity budget. I would remove it entirely.
- The command line is bad, in particular
checkoutis horribly overloaded. I would move the functionality ofgit checkout --intogit reset. - You end up with too many copies of every branch that can get out of sync with each other, made more confusing because git almost-but-not-quite hides your local copy of the remote. This introduces an extra asymmetry where
fetchhas no converse. I think I would probably remove the local copy of the remote and have an online-first workflow where you can only pull/merge remote branches when you’re online; if you want a local clone of the remote repo distinct from your working repo then set one up explicitly (as a bare repository).
-
The staging area is inconsistent (in particular in how it interacts with stash) and not useful enough to be worth the complexity budget. I would remove it entirely.
Yikes, no thanks! The stage is one of my favorite features. Building up a commit piecemeal is soooo much better than the old subversion commit style that encouraged devs to just throw in every dirty file.
-
-
-
-
There is absolutely nothing “bad practice” about building up a proposed commit, testing the staged commit, and then committing it.
It’s certainly a better practice than the “tweaked the renderer, adjusted the logging, added two new export formats, and some other stuff I forgot about” kitchen sink dogshit commits that “commit all dirty files” inevitably leads to.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I like git, but I’ve had the chance to onboard smart developers who are more familiar with mercurial. They’ve made some convincing arguments as to why mercurial is nice to use.
I don’t know if the next billion programmers will use git, but I have no doubt they can use git. Most people come out of a 6 week coding bootcamp knowing how to use git and github. That’s a pretty low bar.
-
My main problem with just about every article I’ve ever seen espousing this sentiment is that it comes along with zero solutions.
If you’re going to say “Git is bad.” then you need to also offer an alternate model of collaborative version control that works better. So far I haven’t seen that.
-
I don’t think that’s true. What you’re saying is that I don’t have the right to say something is bad unless I also have the ability to fix it, which seems ridiculous to me. I hear that a lot with open source software, “if you don’t like it, just fork it and change it!”.
Just because I use Git doesn’t mean I know how to write a VCS. There are, however, people who do know how to do that, and I can appeal to them in the hopes that they might agree with me.
-
-
-
git was dismissed as being ‘too computery sciencey’
Speaking as someone who writes software. That’s horrifying.
prefer Accurev over git
I just googled accurev. My gut reaction was that it looks a lot like a nightmare of a product I was once forced to use called IBM Jazz something.
-
-
-
And you can continue to throw money at solutions to help, but everyone knows there’s an elephant in the room: no amount of money is a guarantee that you will NOT be hacked. I have a hard time running this through the heads of my clients. Yes, you just spent $400m to buy a whole host of security equipment. You spent 18 months getting it all set up following industry-standard best practices.
And a trusted employee just walked out the door with a flash drive containing your entire customer database.
-
This blog post is worse than removing the 3.5mm audio jack. It says nothing new, all of this has been said about a thousand times in the past months. This has been discussed to death leading up to the iPhone 7 announcement, and is now beating a dead horse.
If you don’t like the removal of the jack, don’t buy an iPhone 7. But if you truly think it was a mistake, you’re wrong. The sales of the iPhone 7 are solid and probably will remain so. The reality is most people don’t need it. Apple is right. They have the usage statistics to make this decision based on data, not based on lame editorials.
Lightning is definitely not the future of getting audio out of an iPhone, wireless is. Maybe Bluetooth will get replaced by something else. But right now lots of people use Bluetooth. I use it to get audio to play in my car every day, and it works fine. It’s could be better but it’s good enough. It’s a lot more convenient than plugging my phone into an audio jack. I don’t even have to take it out of my pocket.
-
-
Wireless is not the future. The future is not a second device to power. The future is not EMI bound. The future is not an inferior DAC on an external device.
There will always be demand for a wired connection, in the same way that you still have computers talking to each other over ethernet.
Wireless is a compromise, and always will be.
-
Wireless is a compromise, and always will be.
Every technology choice you make represents a compromise. There is no one absolute best choice.
I chose to compromise speed and reliability of my home network in exchange for the flexibility to use it anywhere in my house and super easy installation - no fish tape for me!
Wired speaker systems offer the best sound output but have the same drawbacks as above.
Most people who use headphones have a relatively crappy set of earbuds that they use to talk on the phone and listen to music as they do other things. Apple decided the benefits of removing the cord outweigh the drawbacks. And I wager they’ll be proven correct.
-
Yeah, I mean that whole WiFi thing never took off. Don’t even get me started on the failed technology behind Bluetooth mice/keyboards and wireless video game controllers.
I mean, history is just filled with technology transitioning from wireless back to wired connections, like… um… like uh… hmm. Well I’m sure there’s something. No one uses wireless devices anymore.
-
WiFi? Urgh. It’s 2016 and I still can’t get decent performance at home, even sitting in the same room as the AP. Admittedly, I am running OpenWRT on 802.11ac hardware (not the best supported combination, but I refuse to run vendor firmware), but still.
Perhaps I should bite the bullet and buy some enterprise hardware (or even “prosumer” stuff like Ubiquiti hardware) - most places I’ve consulted at over the last ~10 years have been wireless-only for laptops and, with the right setup and hardware, it works pretty well. Admittedly, open plan offices are pretty easy to support…
-
-
behold the wireless accessory future (http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/magic_mouse_2_charging.jpg)
Further, lets do a speed test with 10gb ethernet and wifi then.
-
Further, lets do a speed test with 10gb ethernet and wifi then.
Or regular gigabit. Or 100Mb, if somebody’s using the microwave. Wireless connections are really bad, but it turns out the general public mostly uses the sum total of technological innovation since the 70s or so to share their political views with people who don’t care and watch cat videos, and so most of the sum total of technological innovation since the 90s or so has been gobbled up by Wirth’s Law and not really used for anything. So people don’t care, and choose what to buy based on what’s shiniest.
-
I think that’s an overly pessimistic view. I use wireless at work and it’s perfectly adequate. I download files from servers on our intranet at 50-80 megabytes a second with no problem. While technically slower than the theoretical maximum of ~125 megabytes a second on gigabit ethernet, I still can’t be assed to plug in the ethernet cable that sits unused on my desk 2 feet from my laptop every single day.
I stream Netflix over LTE on my train ride to work and the quality is perfectly adequate, no complaints. The only things I ever need 10 gigabit for usually involve a cluster of servers, not my laptop.
-
-
Oh please post the 10gb vs wifi speed test benchmark results. I have been wondering if I need to get an external NIC attached via PCIe over thunderbolt in order to fully utilize my 25mbs home internet connection. I have a wireless AC router do you think that’s enough for 25mbs internet?
-
-
-
-
-
And yet here I am, using wired speakers and using wired internet.
The point is that for every leap in wifi, there is an equal if not larger leap in wired throughput. The physics involved favor wires.
At some point, yes wireless will be good enough for most people, but absolute performance will always reside with wires.
-
-
-
-
-
Some of the answers are complete non-sequiturs for the questions. “It has a sound system and a desktop WM” is not the answer to “is it good for a desktop”. If that was all it took, we’d be using Windows Mobile 5 on the desktop. “We have 400 developers” is not an answer to “is the development model closed”. If it were, I’m sure Windows has thousands of developers, and they also have a voting system on feature development. “Hardware is a moving target” isn’t a good answer to “does FreeBSD have drivers”.
There’s a lot of good reasons to use FreeBSD, but I agree with tedu on this one, I don’t know if this is a terribly effective FAQ.
-
Whilst the insight about using iOS as your daily driver and the downsides of its design are interesting, the idea that Linux users use Linux “for the challenge” is downright wrong. I use Linux because it makes my life easier (osx would quite possibly also work for me, but I can’t afford a mac) mainly because it is designed almost opposite to iOS.
-
I agree. The fundamental concept in this article is “people use iOS as a challenge”, which is wrong. There may be several reasons (convenience, cost, novelty) but “challenge” is hardly one of them. The second idea the author presents to compare this claim to is Linux, which again, is wrong. There are a lot of reasons people might use Linux (convenience, cost, novelty, ideology) but few people use it as a challenge. To be sure, I’d bet more people use Linux as a challenge than they do iOS, but that’s still far from a main reason let alone the main reason.
Here’s a better claim: iPad-only is the new dumb phone (after the invention of the smartphone). iPad-only is the new typewriter (after the invention of the PC). iPad-only is the new unplugged, the new Luddite, the new Amish. It’s people intentionally crippling their workflow in an attempt to improve their quality of life. It’s people who believe that simplicity is the key to productivity. “Doing it for a challenge” is the exact opposite of that. iPad-only is the rejection of challenge.
-
-
-
I run Firefox both in Debian and OS X. The experience on Debian is really good, not a single problem since I installed Debian Jessie. But in OS X, Firefox is getting worse with each release. UI sluggish if even you switching to the next tab and performance drops if you open 6 apps or more. Even in Android, the experience is much smoother. This is a huge concern since users are constantly moving to OS X, especially in US and Europe.
If Mozilla wants leverage it needs to make the experience sublime for everyone, across platforms and device ranges.
P.S.: I don’t know how Firefox runs on Windows, but maybe some user can enlighten me.
-
The worst part for me is, Firefox on OS X is currently sitting at 277.7 on the Energy Impact meter (in the background with one tab open) and Safari (the browser I’m posting this from) is 2.5. Firefox has zero extensions installed, Safari has three. That’s a massive difference, and I can feel it in the battery life. Safari gets me 8 hours easily, Firefox drops that to 6 at best.
-
I’m learning to knit! Also applying to jobs and my arduino came in so I might start having fun with that.
Although I never was any good at knitting, my grandma taught me to crochet when I was young and I’ve never forgotten it. During the times when tech support is remoted into my machine to debug something, I usually pick up the hook and yarn and work on something a bit more relaxing than my day job :)