I’m still not at the point where I jump to “AI” when encountering writing like this and spend way too long waiting for the facts and research to show up.
> They don't even know how to ask the right questions to get to what they want to know.
You're right. If the questions were being asked of someone who was genuinely motivated to answer them, this wouldn't be an obstacle.
The phrase "all your personal data" (or the quote from the article, "every bit of data associated with a given user account") feels vague and imprecise only if you have an internal understanding that for practical purposes, it really is impossible. The Facebook engineers know that and everyone here knows that. It's not literally impossible - an internal team of digital archaeologists with unlimited resources and no deadline might be able to do it for a single user. But practically impossible across the whole userbase.
If you were genuinely interested in providing insight to the hearing, you could explain all that, and then explain how you could go about creating a rough sketch of an answer, and how you'd go about adding some detail to that sketch.
The Facebook engineers have no real motivation to provide insight off their own bat. They can take the question literally, and answer honestly that they don't know, that nobody else knows, and that it's probably impossible TO know. I'm not even sure if this is acting in bad faith. I can easily imagine feeling cagey in this situation, and responding as such. Experiencing an emotion isn't acting in bad faith.
All that said...these questions were asked by a court-appointed subject matter expert. Either the subject matter expert is not the right person for the job, or...and now I realise that of course I haven't read the transcript and there's every chance that what's quoted in the article is not the most insight the court managed to prise out of the engineers. posting anyway in 3 2 1
I love it. Something I always wish for with linters is an easy way to run them only for the lines changed in a particular diff, to allow a codebase to gradually converge on consistency without breaking git blame by reformatting everything. Is there a nice way to do that for any Python linter?
At Facebook we only tell you about lint violations for the lines you touch using arcanist from phabricator[1]. While it works great for most lint warnings, this hasn't worked that well for code formatters.
The most successful strategy was to add a flag in the file (@format in the header) to tell that a file is automatically formatted. The immediate benefit is that we enable format on save for developers on those files when they use Nuclide (>90% of penetration for JavaScript and Hack).
The other advantage is that when we release a new version of the formatter, we can re-run it on all those files so that people don't have lint warnings on code they already formatted in the past.
With that setup, there's a strong incentive for individual engineers to run the formatter on their team codebase in one PR and then everyone benefits from now on.
It doesn't. Use `git hyper-blame` or `git blame $REV^ -- $PATH`.
Sure, there is an additional step but we feel this shouldn't be a blocker for significant workflow improvements.
In fact, a single big "reformat all" commit is better than a bunch of incremental ones that reformat areas that you also change semantically. That is harder to filter and makes diffs harder to follow (which changes are logic and which are just style?).
This video is great. It's made me really interested in the new camera, and the relative lack of actual information presented about it, in contrast to what's presented in that video, is frustrating. Are there more details available somewhere?
AFAIK there isn't a widely-used, solid JS compressor written in Python, so you're adding a dependency either way. You either need a Java runtime for the Closure Compiler, or you need Node to run uglify or similar.
This isn't about peer review, because the paper was knowingly submitted only to journals known not to conduct peer review. Quoting from the article:
> We needed to get our study published pronto, but since it was such bad science, we needed to skip peer review altogether. Conveniently, there are lists of fake journal publishers.
And later:
> The new publisher’s CEO, Carlos Vasquez, emailed Johannes to let him know that we had produced an “outstanding manuscript,” and that for just 600 Euros it “could be accepted directly in our premier journal.”
This is really more about science journalism than about science.
These kinds of journals are difficult for a lay person to tell apart from actual, scientific journals, but distinguishing between the two is exactly the kind of job a competent science journalist would do. Inept science journalists, on the other hand, give these fake journals a reason to exist by citing them unchallenged.
And his experiment reveals that the Internet gets its nutrition science from inept science journalists. Think of all the arguments won by people searching google and having this show up. I once won an argument by changing Wikipedia during the argument and showing it to him on his computer.
There are certainly solutions to deal with it by designing for leaks as an expected maintenance problem, though preventing them would obviously be preferable. There are numerous operating molten salt reactors around the world, so I guess it depends what you mean by viable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor...
96% of fissile material converted to non-fissile material, and that energy is then converted to electricity at normal steam turbine efficiency, 30% or something. This as opposed to less than 1% for Gen III reactors.
Edit: I posted that fuel handling is a batch process, not continuous – that might not be true for molten salt, not sure.
I don't think the author would disagree with much of your post.
I did not understand the point to be that wine critics are frauds – it's that they're playing a game that someone lacking the "deeper understanding and appreciation" simply doesn't have to participate in by buying expensive wine.
As you rightly say this applies equally to all areas of taste, but wine is a good one to call out because people seem to feel a bit bad about knowing nothing and overspend to be on the safe side.
I’m still not at the point where I jump to “AI” when encountering writing like this and spend way too long waiting for the facts and research to show up.