Meta is successful because people can promote their small and local businesses. Because money can be made from ‘likes’. Because of the algorithm. Because people can get their news inline with their family photos. It’s everything.
Everyone who leaves Meta reduces the value of their advertising just a little bit. If lots of people leave, it will make the company less profitable.
The USA is just clarifying what the rules always were.
I’m used to ORM layers where you can write SQL queries but you’re basically converting the results to objects before you use them. These kinds of things tend to handle bits OK, and bit parameters can usually be set as booleans directly. I haven’t used SQL Server in a while though so maybe it isn’t as convenient as that.
It would probably carry less risk, but in terms of bytes used this would be even worse. And we have other problems there that I’d tell you about but it would make me too sad.
Well that would be ok, because any standard tool for interfacing with the database would transparently treat bit in the DB as bool in the code. I think many DBs call it a bit rather than a bool.
Oh you have no idea. There is no teaching this guy.
Yeah of course we convert, but it effectively means you need this little custom conversion layer between every application and its database. It’s a pain.
Zero is something you always have to watch out for and handle, because he likes to use NULL for “don’t know”. I should really have deleted the database while it was still young, before they had backups.
Trump likes and wants money?
My boss insisted, before I arrived at the company, that everything in the database be coded so that 1 = Yes and 2 = No, because that’s the way he likes to think of it. It causes us daily pain.
How dare people want to balance his quality of life with their own!
Don’t buy BrewDog beer. Got it.
To do it based on intent would create some difficult grey areas - for example, video game creators would have to try to make their games as compelling as possible without passing a more or less vague threshold and breaking the law. The second approach of working on the ways different types of data can be used sounds more promising.
How would you identify the kinds of algorithms that should be banned, as opposed to all the other kinds of algorithms? I have a feeling that would be tricky.
“And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”
The message I get from that is this is one dumb motherfucker who shouldn’t be anywhere near power.
The timing though, the way all these companies are scrambling to enable bigotry before Trump even takes office, shows that they are now afraid of the consequences of being seen not to discriminate. They believe they cannot continue to do business in Trump’s USA while being seen to stand up in even the smallest way for anyone but cishet white men. The preemptive compliance has set in even faster than we thought it would.
The decline of interest in C++ and the rise of Rust may be correlated and may not have much to do with AI tools. C++ is complicated, messy and easy to make trouble for yourself with. Rust promises to be suitable for many of the same purposes, while more modern and more performant than most other high-level alternatives, and protecting you from many memory management bugs. That in itself will be moving some people over to Rust.
Investigations of Trump reliably conclude just after it becomes impossible for them to have any effect on him. It feels a little deliberate on the part of both Republicans and Democrats.
At the same time, any good they do does not erase or counterbalance the harm. Jimmy Savile, the UK’s worst celebrity paedophile who abused hundreds of children, conspicuously did a lot for charities throughout his career. He said that he knew God would look at all the good he had done and it would make up for the bad things. There was a calculus in which he only had to do more good each time he did bad, and it would cancel it out. It’s a twisted view. Harm is harm and is not changed by any independent “good” act a person does. But apparent goodness can change its significance in the light of the harm that accompanies it.
Savile’s apparent selfless good acts were actually a calculated attempt to win license to do harm, and a psychological coping mechanism to allow him to believe in his own basic goodness before God. Plus the reputation for selfless goodness served as a smokescreen to prevent people seeing clearly what was really going on, and to win the support and protection of powerful people. Seen this way, while the charitable works may have had some helpful effects, these were not genuinely good actions but in large part self-serving and an integral part of the dynamics of this man’s abuse.
I think the same applies to men like Cosby and Gaiman: the overt charity or the overt feminism changes its meaning when you see how it serves them psychologically and reputationally, amd how it may be a functional part of the whole abusive operation.
Matt Bernstein in a recent video (it’s long) discusses men who act as outspoken self-avowed feminists but then abuse their power to treat women terribly. The feminism may be genuine, but it may also be their smokescreen, or a mix of each, and when a man is very loud about being a feminist you have to look carefully to see which is the case. Some are genuine, but you have to ask. Maybe Gaiman was doing the feminist smokescreen, or maybe he’s just so messed up that these two sides of his life - the feminism and the abuse - just didn’t really encounter each other.
Is that per patient? Sounds awfully expensive for extracting a bit of blood.