I've spent very little time on ao3, but I imagine it's slightly better than RR where seemingly a mark of value is "huge length (word count and chapters)" with weekly updates.
The metro is a much less stressful experience for me with noise cancellation on. Without them the noise in tunnels just makes me anxious. The outside tracks are all fine without them though.
And for walking around - it's the traffic noise that bothers me, not people. Traffic noise can just be so loud along some roads (and at certain times of day) that it makes me not want to walk at all.
Traffic and honking can be quite annoying. I find the AirPods Pro knock down quick a bit of noise even when off just because of their tips, but when I want it even quieter I use the noise canceling.
Some places aren’t loud but most U.S. cities are. I’m going to Paris this summer, and I probably won’t use AirPods while walking around.
These criticisms of git always seems so shallow to me.
'add' tells git to start tracking some file(s)
'commit' tells git to save the currently tracked files
'push' says "upload my changes to some other location." Git isn't dropbox magically 'rsync'ing the directory to some server.
'pull' says "download any changes from some other location." Same deal as push.
That should satisfy the majority of git casuals that get frustrated with it. You should learn the tools of your trade, and version control (specifically git) is one of the tools of the software trade. If you work adjacent to software why is it so hard to learn a little about git?
I hate the word mansplaining but this comment could go into the dictionary as an example.
The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time (what is it like 15 years ago at this point) and indeed did not understand it yet. Hope your comment made you feel better about yourself at least.
> The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time
and that is fine. From your original comment, you "just" wanted to save things and got confused why you had to `add`, `commit` and `push`. Its just that you didn't know that git isn't a word processor that gives you a way to save your work - you've done that already when you saved the file with your editor.
When I came to git, I was also confused why commit and push are different steps - so much work, I thought. Until one day it finally hit - wait, this lets me keep "saving" my work locally until I'm ready to upload it - which is when I push.
> I was also confused why commit and push are different steps
I think most people think about file access in the word processor terms, like you mentioned. You "edit," "save," "upload," and "download." Actions like that.
Then they have to use git for the first time and the terms/actions are really foreign. It's likely made worse if they have experience with auto-syncing file software, since that software does the whole remote management process for them.
Because the same reasoning behind that statements implies that certain races are innately inferior to others. You chose to write "Asians" and "whites" here - why not make the same statement with "whites" and "blacks?"
Saying "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" is a thinly veiled way to say "and whites are superior to all other non-Asian/white races."
And the claim that "Asians" are intellectually superior to "whites" isn't even correct "because of race." I'm not aware of any real study that attributed racial identity to measure intelligence. Cultural differences? Socioeconomic differences? Country of origin? Sure. Race? Used as a proxy for the former.
It seems really the problem is twofold: the reference is from 1992 and cites a 1981 publication's reference to an unpublished 1958 generator. Not to say that being old makes the algorithm bad, but it's a bad implementation of an algorithm that already is questionable given more recent research.
I'll go section by section:
> //Apparently the range [1..55] is special (Knuth) and so we're wasting the 0'th position.
This is a silly comment. Knuth explicitly states that "24 and 55 in this definition were not chosen at random; they are special values that happen to define a sequence whose least significant bits, {Xn mod 2), will have a period of length 2^55 - 1. Therefore the sequence (Xn) must have a period at least this long."
Then you have the initial seeding of the LCG with with a = 21 and m = 55, which is interesting. Numerical Recipes uses those values, but Knuth whom they got the algorithm from does not suggest them. The closest Knuth suggests is 24 and 55. This suggestion is from 1981, so the viability is questionable (and Knuth clearly states that this is an unpublished algorithm from 1958 - Numerical Recipes itself questions the quality).
Then they use 21 for inextp - this is wrong. Numerical Recipes uses 31, and that is significant per the period length quote above. The use of 21 should measurable lower the period.
So the implementation is a questionable algorithm from 1958, and it's done incorrectly. Numerical Recipes opens the chapter on randomness almost immediately with: "Now our first ... lesson in this chapter is: be very, very suspicious of a system-supplied rand()," and then the authors of the .NET random package show exactly why that is.
As somebody who regularly reads translated works, including the occasional machine translation (MTL), they (MTL) suck. You got a hugely biased result, which you recognize.
Translation is hard. If you're familiar with reading translations from specific languages MTL works have a very specific smell to them, it's a bit hard to describe but it's there. A good translation is miles (kilometers, for those outside of the US) above MTL.
That's not to say that perhaps the latest LLMs will have better translation abilities, but that they are generally crap currently. Maybe they are fine for something very short, but absolutely not for longer content.
I read genres where MTL is somewhat commonly used. But good quality human translations take remarkable effort. And even artistic choices. Like choices between transliterating and translating. Or maybe in some cases just doing both for single name or term. And then keeping these choices consistent over substantial works.
And it is not like transliteration is consistent thing. Some cases would prefer the old way. Or existing already common one. Even across entirely different works from different authors.
I've spent very little time on ao3, but I imagine it's slightly better than RR where seemingly a mark of value is "huge length (word count and chapters)" with weekly updates.
reply