This is quite the bold statement to make with RAM prices sky high.
I want to agree with the locality of errors argument, and while in simple cases, yes, it holds true, it isn't necessarily true. If we don't overcommit, the allocation that kills us is simply the one that fails. Whether this allocation is the problematic one is a different question: if we have a slow leak that, every 10k allocation allocs and leaks, we're probably (9999 / 10k, assuming spherical allocations) going to fail on one that isn't the problem. We get about as much info as the oom-killer would have, anyways: this program is allocating too much.
(b.) they practically demonstrate the point: while, yes, AI uses em-dashes, the entire corpus of em-dashes is still largely human, too, so using that as a sole signal is going to have a pretty high false positive rate.
This reminds me of my ASRock motherboard, though this was over a decade ago now. The actual board was one piece of hardware, but the manual it shipped with was for a different piece of hardware. Very similar, but not identical (and worse, not identical where I needed them to be, which, naturally, is both the only reason I noticed and how these things get noticed…), but yet both manual and motherboard had the same model number. ASRock themselves appeared utterly unaware that they had two separate models wandering around bearing the same name, even after it was pointed out to them.
The next motherboard (should RAM ever cease being the tulip du jour) will not be an ASRock, for that and other reasons.
For the love of everything though, just increment the model number.
While I agree (and I agree with the upstream comments, too), there's often deeper reasons why we can short circuit fully evaluating an argument made on its merits: often the "merits", or lack thereof, are derived from the party's values and beliefs, and if we know those values to be corrupt, it's likely that subsequent arguments are going to be similarly corrupt.
There's only so much time in the day, only so much life to live. Could a blog post written by the worst person you know have a good point, even though it's titled something like "An argument in favor of kicking puppies" by Satan himself? I mean, true, I haven't read it, yet. There could be a sound, logical argument buried within.
This is also what "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" teaches, essentially. Trust is hard-won, and easily squandered.
"A lie is around the world before the truth has finished tying its shoes."
"Flood the Zone" is why some of us are so exhausted, though.
In these instances, the argument has to come from someone who is self-aware enough of the short-circuit to say "okay, look, I am going to address that elephant" — but mostly, that's not what happens.
Thankfully in this case, all we need get through is the title.
I don't care about people's values, unless I am evaluating them; that's their own business, and I am not the value police or thought police. Goodness knows there are people (hi, mom!) who are appalled by some of my values.
Roman Polanski and Woody Allen: terrible humans, but they have still made some of the best films that exist.
Everyone is the value police, though, at some level. It is either cowardice or willful ignorance to pretend you don't have judgements about how other people behave, some of which might compel you to act in some way.
Already, today, human customer support agents' performance is measured in ticket resolution, and the Goodhart's Law consequences of that are trivial visible to anyone that's ever tried to get a ticket actually resolved, as opposed to simply marked "resolved" in a ticketing system somewhere…
If the positioning [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUcs1LCjhcs) is at all close to accurate, that looks closer to 300km, with the entirety of Aruba between them & the closest point in Venezuela. (Or all of Curaçao, but I think that line is longer.)
(TFA does say 64 km, though.)
Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
> Edit: I'm not sure about 64 km. The 64km is for the Curaçao departing flight, but Curaçao's airport is itself 80 km from Venezuela, and they headed north pretty immediately? I.e., … they would have never been < 80 km…?
If you take off from Curaçao and head like 10km west before you've actually left the island, you end up pretty much within 64km of Adicora, Venezuela. Probably what they meant I guess.
2) Why aren't the military craft listening to the local flight channel? Aren't you supposed to monitor local traffic? Especially when flying without a transponder? It's not like you can't listen to multiple channels at the same time!
Military aircraft mostly do not have civilian VHF radio, only military UHF radio. They can only communicate with civilian aircraft by using civilian ATC as a go-between, and only if the civilian ATC is equipped with military UHF radio. In the US, this military equipment is standard at civilian ATC sites for this reason.
Why don't they have at least a receive-only radio? I can understand if they're averse to someone keying up and accidentally broadcasting Secret Military Stuff on the civilian frequency, but a an air-band capable VHF receiver is less than $100 as a consumer buying single units. Surely the MIC could find a way to add one for just $10k as cheap insurance against losing a $5 million plane in a tragic and avoidable accident?
Makes me want to reconfigure my servers to just drop such traffic. If you can't be arsed to send a well-formed UA, I have doubts that you'll obey other conventions like robots.txt.
I want to agree with the locality of errors argument, and while in simple cases, yes, it holds true, it isn't necessarily true. If we don't overcommit, the allocation that kills us is simply the one that fails. Whether this allocation is the problematic one is a different question: if we have a slow leak that, every 10k allocation allocs and leaks, we're probably (9999 / 10k, assuming spherical allocations) going to fail on one that isn't the problem. We get about as much info as the oom-killer would have, anyways: this program is allocating too much.
reply