This is possible but doesn’t take into account that the likely reason the period went out of fashion as a sentence terminator is that the need for having a terminator in the first place has diminished.

Interesting, I haven’t come across the paragraph part before. I think the period at end of message went away mostly because it is redundant. Once you hit enter, the message is finished and this is very easy to see in the user interfaces of today. So you save some keystrokes which can be nice especially when you’re sending multiple messages in quick succession.

I suppose a similar argument could be made for paragraphs: the end of the paragraph is already clear from the vertical spacing, a final period doesn’t add anything functionally.

Not directly related but the German band Die Ärzte has what is in my opinion a much better song on a similar theme.

Clever girl

Artistic rules are quite different from rules of law.
When making art, you should know the rules (and especially why they exist) before breaking them because the reason why each rule exists is that we figured out along the way that most ways of breaking it lead to worse art.

Of course, tastes are different, but the basic aesthetic sensibilities of humans living in the same culture have a lot of overlap.

Knowing the rules leaves you much better equipped to achieve your desired effect on the consumers of your art. If you don’t know the rules of grammar, your text will likely be quite difficult to parse and, unless that was your intention or a worthwhile trade for some other effect you’re going for, this is probably sabotaging your writing.
When you break the rules, you introduce friction. If you don’t know why they exist, the “punishment” is that your art is not perceived as you intended.

You literally just started your sentence with a conjunction

And?

I’ve felt for a while that House of El uses LLMs heavily in their scripts. It’s a pandemic on YouTube feels like.
So yeah, the common source is likely clanker speak.

Don’t have the energy to look into the account itself, but this comment does have that “it’s not just x it’s y” stank. It’s everywhere nowadays, it’s fucking exhausting.
In blog posts, in news articles, YouTube videos and now in fucking lemmy comments. Disgusting.

Ok, hear me out.

It’s obvious that not everyone has the same needs and that new users are likely to be overwhelmed by instructions/tools that are highly technically involved, BUT

I think it’s actually quite valuable for others to question whether you actually want what you think you do, especially if you’re inexperienced. You know, the whole “you don’t know what you don’t know” spiel?
It’s still usually most helpful to get answers to the question you actually asked, but there’s a decent chance you will learn valuable context from suggestions that are only tangential and you might even realize that there are much better solutions to your problem, you just didn’t have the framework to even imagine them.

I disagree. Function names should describe, as clearly and as precisely as possible, what they do rather than why they do it in one particular way.
I find comments helpful when the implementation of a function is surprising, i.e. it diverges from patterns one might normally expect for similar tasks. Specialized performance optimizations would be one example I can think of.

ADRs are useful, but I’m not sure they make much sense for implementation details at the level of a function.

All that said, I do agree that functions should be clear in name and content and I think comments should be rare.

Well, you’re each focused a bit much on your own tree, but the one who is also seeing the forest is velma, not you.

Your tree: “negative” applies to the entire sentence, including “beliefs” and “behaviors”, not just “attitudes”. Correct.

velma’s tree: the definition also includes stereotyping and prejudice stemming from misconceptions. Correct.

The forest: that you don’t consider an attitude or belief “negative” is immaterial when it has a negative effect on bi folks’ well being or safety.

Also, initiating a sexual relationship with a bi person because you wrongly believe based on your incorrect stereotype of bi people that this will lead to threesomes is something I would classify as negative behavior. Especially when the threesomes predictably don’t materialize.

Which is the actual hard thing to align.
Getting the corner to touch like in the photo can be achieved by moving the camera.

These things are not analogous. Trump isn’t saying “vote for me and if I win I’ll use my newly invested powers to give you xyz”.
He’s saying “vote for my friends and I’ll use the power I already have to give you xyz”.
There’s definitely a difference, the second being much more coercive. Imagine if instead he threatened to send people to fight in Iran if republicans didn’t win the midterms. Whether this is illegal I don’t know, but it should be.

It’s also much weaker rhetorically. You can’t say “I haven’t given you the $5k yet because I didn’t have power before”.

The guy is clearly a dangerous asshole with anger issues and his violent actions are completely reprehensible. He should be doing community service and taking therapy at a minimum, prison if she’s seriously injured (she appears to have hit her head on that bench at the end there - scary shit).

Everything below with a pinch of salt since we lack a lot of context - we don’t know what was said and what their relationship is (I’m not taking the social media post by the woman’s alleged friend at face value for now).

The man is definitely the one who deserves most of the blame in this interaction, but the woman is not innocent and I’m confused with people in this thread seemingly implying that she is.
She initiated the physical confrontation and never seems to try to deescalate. She may be a badass, but she also has bad judgement. I don’t want her to be still and demure, but I also don’t want people to think it’s a good idea to pick fights and prolong them.

She grabs his drink while he’s trying to bring it to his mouth - this starts the physical altercation and could be interpreted as an act of aggression (realistically the guy just had his anger flare up and decided to splash it in her face - this is not self defense and I’m not defending it; but is it an escalation? Hardly, I think).
She then escalates by trying to slap him (inadvisable) and he pushes her back (this legitimately looks like self defense and is the only action in this entire incident that seems somewhat justifiable).
He kicks her after she falls down - escalation, malicious, indefensible.
As he appears to attempt to disengage (grabbing his stuff and turning to leave) she gets up, grabs an empty bottle and confronts him, holding it like a weapon. I doubt he was actually fearing for his safety but what was she thinking? Here it would have been quite useful to have audio for context. That said, she doesn’t raise the bottle for an attack nor step closer to him, so he could still (and should have!) disengage from the encounter.
(One could argue she picked up the bottle to defend herself but I’m skeptical - why did she walk all the way over to him instead of waiting for him to leave, as he appears to be trying to do?)

Instead he goes ballistic and pushes her by the neck hard enough that she’s thrown backwards to the ground, hitting her head on the way down. This is a major unnecessary and indefensible escalation of violence and should really make him liable in court. He could have killed her for Christ’s sake!
Again, we don’t know what was said but my guess is she said something that angered him which triggered him into pushing her - absolutely reprehensible on his part if this is the case.

Lessons for everyone:

• don’t be a raging asshole
• don’t push people in urban settings - it’s much more dangerous than you think
• don’t start fights with people, especially if there are no witnesses that could intervene when things get ugly
• if someone is trying to leave a fight, let them

I almost mentioned French, but thought it didn’t need to catch strays here haha.
To be honest I don’t know much about Esperanto, but it lacks one critical requirement - to be a world language. And realistically it has no chance to be. The number of people who speak it is a rounding error.

I think what has a real shot at happening instead is that English spelling simplifies gradually and organically until it is largely straightforward. That is if Chinese doesn’t end up as the next world language lol

It’s plausible that Americans are worse at this than foreigners, but English spelling is a crime and everyone who makes mistakes ought be excused on account of how ridiculous the “rules” are.
I know how to spell most of the words I use and I resent the fact that my memory is polluted with this otherwise useless knowledge.
In many other languages if you know how to say a word, you automatically know how to spell it. We need a world language with grammar as simple as English and spelling as straightforward as German.

Nice

In a decent IDE you can CTRL+click (or similar) on a function name to go to its definition. This is absolutely faster than scrolling, especially if you’ve got more than a couple dozen lines in the current file.

When splitting functionality into smaller functions you would ideally not have to keep implementation details of other functions in short term memory.
You only need to understand/remember the contents of the current function. Does it do what the name suggests? Cool, you’re done checking it.

Of course, the “2 hard problems in computer science” meme exists for a reason - it’s not always straight forward to come up with good names. But in my experience, even when coming up with a fitting name is difficult, reducing nesting usually helps a lot with comprehension, mainly because it reduces scope and thereby the amount of information you need to hold in your head.
The larger a function gets, the harder it is to check that it does what it’s supposed to.

There is of course a balance to strike - trying to force every single function to be at most 3 lines is likely to make the code more difficult to understand and is, in my eyes, almost pathological. But a function that covers more than a screen is the other extreme that should be avoided when practical.

Fair enough, they could have meant something other than what they wrote. I still disagree though - it seems more likely they exaggerated intentionally for dramatic/comedic effect. The joke works better with the straightforward, grammatical interpretation.

Yes. If the article doesn’t contradict anything that I already know and the correctness of the information isn’t required to avoid bodily harm or legal repercussions then I don’t usually check the sources.

There’s a world of difference between the reliability of a continuously, openly and cooperatively updated encyclopedia and that of a stochastic word prediction machine that ingested the entire internet - and only gods (and its owners) know what else.

Wikipedia’s articles tend to improve in accuracy over time, as more people see the same article, can discuss it and correct wrong information / add missing facts and sources.
While LLM models tend to become more capable at certain tasks, they aren’t increasingly reliable at providing accurate information. And there aren’t the same stabilizing forces in play as with a human-edited encyclopedia. You can get correct answers today and incorrect answers tomorrow for the same question. Maybe it’s because the model was updated. Maybe it’s because you used sightly different words to ask the question. Maybe nothing changed and it was simply a random deviation because 0-temperature models aren’t flexible enough.

The point is, you have no way to know. No way of knowing why the answer is wrong this time. No way of ensuring it isn’t wrong again tomorrow. Not even any way of ensuring it isn’t wrong in the same way tomorrow.

So it’s not just that the likelihood of a wrong answer is higher with AI, it’s also much harder to predict what kind of error it might make or when or why and adjust accordingly.
You’re essentially playing roulette for information.