Agreed. To say "good riddance" to Hollywood scares me. Like we are giving up and accepting generated slop and influencers from now on. There's a lot of bad movies, but just as you said, very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood.
>very few mediums have thusly pierced through across cultures and societies quite like Hollywood
This is laughable if you look at video games and music EVEN if you ignore everything american. Not mention Asia from Bollywood to Kpop to anime to HK cinema.
The modern age of video games, that's probably correct. And you're right, music probably compares at some level, especially given that it predates cinema. I wonder if ancient theater (Shakespeare, et al) would qualify. Probably.
I did, for the record, say "very few mediums", so as to allow room for music or video games, perhaps. I still stand by the overall statement that losing Hollywood would mark some sort of tragedy (but maybe not universally).
Also, I wouldn't go as far to say that losing what we know of in current celebrity status by certain actors would be missed. Though influencers are probably more grotesque to some (including myself).
I like your comment, but it seems the author acknowledged this as a caveat to the algorithm.
>Many home routers try to preserve the source port in external mappings. This is a property called “equal delta mapping” – it won’t work on all routers but for our algorithm we’re sacrificing coverage for simplicity.
So to what percentage is this coverage sacrificed exactly? No idea. Not as useful if the percentage is high, as you are implying.
It’s the same assumption is required for any hole punching handshake (including STUN).
> This is a property called “equal delta mapping”
FWIW I’ve worked in computer networking for 20 years and have never heard it called this. This blog is the only source that comes up when I search for that exact term. I wonder where the author got it from.
> It’s the same assumption is required for any hole punching handshake (including STUN).
This is incorrect.
Hole punching requires being able to predict external port. That's it. If the port remains the same, it certainly simplifies things, but ports going up (or down) by 1 (or 2, or 5) with each new mapping is quite common, trivial to detect and to punch through.
I wonder how many new technical terms are going to be created by LLMs - not to say that this post was N
necessarily written by an LLM (but, who knows!)
It comes from academic papers on categorizing NAT behaviors which (trust me) is hardly the page turning research most people are used to. In these papers they talk about patterns NATs use between successive external port allocations -- which they call the "delta."
The name "equal delta" just means a type of NAT with a delta that tries to preserve the source port. Not to be confused with "preserving" type deltas (that preserve "the same numerical distance" between successive mappings -- e.g. a "preserving delta" type with a value of +1 means each successive NAT allocation is one more than the previous.)
"good laptops" yes. But I haven't seen a "great" one in a very long time. The Windows market is asleep at the wheel and a copilot button is not going to resuscitate it.
I think the Surface is as close to great as you can get. I'm not saying that I know the whole market of laptops, you probably know better. But the Surface is pretty good, which is weird because it seems like Microsoft isn't really focusing on it or even backing away from it.
I agree with the parent, that Macbooks are way ahead in terms of usability, polish and charm for a laptop. And the performance is outright stellar.
> Other than Microsoft nobody even makes decent laptops in the Windows world.
I completely agree. I actually quit like and get along with my Surface Laptop. It's a really nice computer overall, worthy. It's the closest you get to the same polish and usability that Apple has in their macbooks.
I absolutely love my M4 macbook pro, it's definitely the best laptop I've ever owned. I had an older macbook pro that I kept way past its lifetime too.
I think the problem is that Microsoft's hardware quality is super inconsistent. We had a ton of employees using Surface laptops and tablets at my previous company, particularly sales and support. The company stopped buying them after a few years because the first year failure rate was almost 15%. However, the folks that had the good ones often kept them for 5 years or more.
Don't know. Plugged it in one morning, and it wasn't turning on. So I tried detaching it from its base because that had been a problem before, but it was dead, so you needed to find the little manual release thing that's inside one of the vents, which I didn't have a tool for, so I gave up on that. Then I turned to ask a coworker to try their charging cord (as mine had to be replaced once after it failed, and I assumed the same thing had happened again), and by the time I got back to my desk a small whisp of smoke was rising from the keyboard, which is strange, because to my understanding that's not where the computer bits are in that laptop.
So I unplugged it, at which point I noticed the smoke was increasing. So we doused it in CO2 (maybe N2, idk, some cheap gas we had lying around for the wetlab), pried the computer part off of the base, and then IT handled sending it back to M$.
You overestimate my ability to keep mental context for 6 months.
And additionally, most of the PRs I have seen reviewed, the quality hasn't really degraded or improved since LLMs have started contributing. I think we have been rubber stamping PRs for quite sometime. Not sure that AI is doing any worse.
The cognitive load on a code review tends to be higher when its submitted by someone who hasn't been onboarded well enough and it doesn't matter if they used an AI or not. A lot of the mistakes are trivial or they don't align with status quo so the code review turns into a way of explaining how things should be.
This is in contrast to reviewing the code of someone who has built up their own context (most likely on the back of those previous reviews, by learning). The feedback is much more constructive and gets into other details, because you can trust the author to understand what you're getting at and they're not just gonna copy/paste your reply into a prompt and be like "make this make sense."
It's just offloading the burden to me because I have the knowledge in my head. I know at least one or two people who will end up being forever-juniors because of this and they can't be talked out of it because their colleague is the LLM now.
Well, it should be the approver of the PR, not the author (AI slop or human slop) that is accountable. I don't ever want an AI to auto-approve a PR (or maybe only for very small things, like dependency-bot kind of tasks).
Not saying that's how it's done, in terms of accountability. The skin-in-the-game thing is hopefully still present, even with AI. But you're right, there's risk.
Both points here are appreciated. One that a README file as a "placeholder" for a directory gives the opportunity to describe why said empty directory exists. I would be slightly concerned though if my build process picked up this file during packaging. But that's probably a minor concern and your point stands.
Additionally, the AI comment is ironic as well. It's like we're finally writing good documentation for the sake of agents, in a way that we should have been writing all along for other sentient consumers. It's funny to see documentation now as basically the horse instead of the cart.
I agree with you. Empty .gitignore would be a "smell" to me. Whereas .gitkeep tells me exactly what purpose it serves. I like the semantic difference here that you describe. I don't like when multiple .gitignore files are littered throughout the codebase.
I'm not sure that governments actually create them, not prolifically at least. There's been some state actor influence over the years, for sure.
However, exploits that are known (only) by a state actor would most definitely be a closely guarded secret. It's only convenient for a state to release information about an exploit when either it's been made public or it has more consequences for not releasing.
So yes, exactly what you said. It's easier to find the exploits than to create them yourself. By extrapolation, you would have to assume that each state maintains its set of secret exploits, possibly never getting to use them for fear of the other side knowing of their existence. Cat & Mouse, Spy vs Spy for sure.
I don't want to be called "gorgeous", but I admit that some of my "love language" is positive affirmations. As a man, I want to know that I am making a positive impact on my family, my wife, my community, my work. I crave that strong positive feedback, just as much or more as anyone.
So yes, I think it is a bit sexist or at minimum gender typing. And I don't think it's necessarily a "lie" for you to overstate your feelings. You might have matured in your approach, but I believe that everyone appreciates (to some variable measurement) positive affirmation from their partners. And that your lie was recognizing your partners needs for inputs, to help them in their self-image, and to assure them in their self-doubts. These are not lies.
My problem isn't with positive affirmation, which I will happily give. Complimenting others, but something so excessively superlative that it feels like manipulation.
For example if I told you 'good thinking', you would probably think I am giving a token of appreciation to you. If I told you 'wow, you are absolutely brillant!', you'd probably think I'm mocking you or trying to manipulate you into doing something.
