This reminded me of ViperGPT[1] from a couple of years ago, which is similar but specific to vision language models. Both of them have a root llm which given a query produces a python program to decompose the query into separate steps, with the generated python program calling a sub model. One difference is this model has a mutable environment in the notebook, but I'm not sure how much of a meaningful difference that is.
I only skimmed this but it has several things that make me suspicious. Mainly that they did not require a diagnosis for ADHD but instead separated participants based on a questionnaire regarding symptoms. Additionally their participant pool somehow contained more than 20% of neurodevelopmental disorders and other mental health disorders which seems very high.
The ASRS-5, while it only has six questions, is actually a very respectable test for ADHD, often used even in clinical research. It's thoroughly tested against more comprehensive tests and the data checks out so far. It's even seeing clinical use as an early screening before going through the full diagnosis, which in adults is very involved, since diagnosis requires a determination that ADHD was present in childhood.
Source: my dad is a clinical psychologist specialising in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD . I kept seeing this pop up in papers so I asked him about it.
ASRS-5 almost ruined my life. I would highly recommend anyone reading this to get a thorough evaluation for ADHD diagnosis before trying medication; or just use audio :)
If someone prescribed you stimulants based solely on ASRS-5, that's malpractice(at least in most the west, I obviously can't speak for every country), and I'm sorry that happened to you. You could have a strong malpractice case if "almost ruined my life" can be well documented. In that case I suggest talking to a lawyer. If what you mean is you did the self-screening and picked ip some adderall on the black market then, then I guess you're outta luck.
And I'm not sure why this is downvoted. Your advice is good. Get properly diagnosed by a professional. Amphetamine or any other adhd medication is not something you wanna take every day unless you have adhd. And even then, only if it's severe enough to seriously worsen your quality of life.
My ADHD is extremely severe. Without meds I tend to end up smoking large amounts of hash and turning my apartment into a garbage dump as I gain weight and my muscles atrophy from inactivity. I've been back on meds for about 6 months now; my place is spotless, I smoke one spliff every 4 weeks(mostly to learn moderation), I'm losing weight, doing cardio every morning, quit smoking cigarettes, and just recently started coding a bit again. For me it's a total lifesaver.
ADHD or not, I would suggest avoiding strong stimulants (ADHD medication) and working on coping mechanisms in conjunction with natural supplements first.
Around half the original pool were excluded, mostly as they quit the questionnaire partway through. It seems believable that process would result in a larger part of the pool having ADHD. It'd also help explain the disparity in musical training.
I think that methodology isn't all that bad, because if they relied on existing diagnosis you get all the variety that is within that data. E.g. people who have been misdiagnosed, people who haven't been diagnosed because they are too functional, etc. While not ideal, it is a legitimate way of running this IMO.
Neat project! Maybe this decision is copied over from unreal engine, but instead of `ensure` and `ensure_always`, having names like `ensure_once` and `ensure` would have been more clear to me.
I can understand where you're coming from, but when programming games you generally don't want a breakpoint to be hit more than once since you are running a loop over multiple frames. So in this case the concept of ensure_once is more common, so the shorter inverse is more convenient. Asserts should be enough to get your attention and not to annoy, so orienting it this way is a deliberate choice.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen such a short article so clearly demonstrate how much don’t actually care about the people who they are to trying to placate. They’re changing the feather because it’s apparently offensive to reference it, but they’re not changing the name because it would cost money. Even though the name is way more tightly tied to the people than the feather. I don’t actually care about the logo or the name I just find having the dichotomy so clearly spelled out interesting.
When a name has been in use as long and is as widely used as ours, the legal, technical, and financial ramifications are broad and deep. A name change effort would have a hefty price tag, would take multiple years to implement, and would have to be led almost entirely by volunteers. As a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, it is not possible to divert the majority of our funding and volunteers away from our primary mission of providing software for the public good, especially as the foundation prepares for mandatory changes that will come from the Cybersecurity Resilience Act (CRA) and other pending legislation. Because of these very real challenges, at this time it would be very difficult to implement a legal name change for The ASF.
Because of these reasons, the ASF Board has decided to prioritize changing the logo and branding and not changing the organization’s name at this time. It is important to us that we take whatever actionable steps we can now to create a more welcoming and inclusive community.
I did read that part, I just feel that the idea that somehow something good comes from removing the feather (which is negligible expense relative to changing the name), is just plainly saying that we care about inclusivity but only so long as it’s not expensive. Which is more or less the policy of every large organization, but it’s rare that it gets said.
I read it as "we can't do it now because complex reasons, but we know it's still a problem and want to do it" and that feels pretty good. Like who's supposed to set the timeline for rectifying long-lived errors in judgement? Unwinding long-lived errors generally takes time.
As someone who once implemented a name change for a much, much smaller company, I can tell you this is just not so. You have to find and fix every contract, bank account, government registration, checkbook, domain name, knowledge base article…it’s endless. And some of those changes cost money in addition to time.
AIU using the feather along with the Apache name could be seen as mindlessly evoking the stereotypical image of a native American as in naive 1950/1960s Western movies, which adds insult to the act of cultural appropriation that is merely using the name.
Here's my cheap suggestion. Change the name from Apache Software Foundation to "A Software Foundation" (or even "ASF Software Foundation"). Change instances of 'Apache X' to 'ASF X'; ex Apache HTTPd becomes ASF HTTPd. The license becomes the ASF License.
You can do it in steps. Anything that's currently Apache X could become ASF X on its own schedule. asf.org seems to be managed by a foundation that changed its name away from ASF in 2010, so it might be available (presumably at some cost) for the ASF to make use of to replace apache.org over time.
This still costs money and time, but it would do the job over time, with a minimal upfront expenses.
Maintaining the trademark requires continued use of Apache. Without the domain name in control, the security implications are disastrous considering how much legacy technology has the domain name hard coded.
If they're going to change their name, they will of course need to abandon the old trademarks.
Anyone claiming their old trademarks for new, will have the same problem of appropriating an indigenous name, and also the issue of approrpriating an abandoned name. Trademark law allows it, but it's not a good look for the newcomer.
For the domain, I would imagine a very long transition. There's a reason the current owner of asf.org still maintains that despite changing their organizational name away in 2010. If ASF starts using a new name and domain name today, I'd expect it takes about 3 years for everything to be fully moved, but old links will need to continue to work for some time after that. Some sort of annual review with a usage threshold would be appropriate... if there's negligable requests to http(s)://httpd.apache.org by 2034, you can remove the A/AAAA records. And a year or two or five, after there are no longer any DNS records for apache.org, it can be transitioned to another organization. Perhaps a transition can be arranged sooner if shared usage can be agreed upon; the new owner could use www while deprecated names continue to redirect.
Things like Maven and numerous other XML namespaces come to mind that can’t exactly move. Then there’s the tons of dirty money to be made by domain squatting apache.org even if all the technical problems were solved because the site has a reputation. It would be like Google changing their domain name and letting the old domain lapse.
Letting the old domain lapse is silly. Presumably, it would eventually be transfered to an indingenous organization, after its use had been nearly extinguished.
There would be references that outlive a naming transition, of course. But if you read a 10 year old book and expect all the urls to work, that seems highly optimistic. It's uncool to change URLs, but stuff happens.
For XML namespaces, I think it's reasonable to keep the existing ones, but a) when there's a new version, use the new domain name exclusively; b) after some time make provisions for publishing old versions under both domain names. My experience with XML namespaces is that they look like a URL, but there isn't always useful content at that url anyway, it's really just a string that's hopefully unique. It's been a while since I used them, but I seem to recall some useful namespaces being tied to domains that were no longer in use as well.
I've used active standards where the standards body had disbanded and no original sources were available... You had to rely on documents saved and shared. It happens, it's part of life. At least if the ASF changes its name, it will continue to exist.
It's work, perhaps a lot of work, but it's tractable. IBM changed its name to IBM, AT&T changed its name to AT&T, ASF can change its name to ASF. Heck, GMAC changed its name to Ally.
It’d be great if the Apache Nations wanted to control the domain name, but they’re still mostly concerned with basics like clean water and other government services.
If you change the name of your company without informing the bank, your creditors, your secured creditors, your shareholders, the state corporation commission, and your firms statutory agent, you will run into some legal problems quickly.
The legal ramifications of changing your name is a ton of documentation, notification, and registration.
You're not really describing that much effort in the scheme of things: make a filing and notify several parties. Annual accounts are a far bigger burden, and they have to be done.
Would you say there are “no legal ramifications,” or that there are legal ramifications that don’t constitute “that much effort”? I’m left a little unclear from your posts.
Just because the ASF's officers won't go to jail for changing the name doesn't mean there aren't any legal ramifications. Trademarks are a legal issue, for starters. Defending the Foundation's trademarks is a big part of what goes on, even if most of that work is done quietly and non-confrontationally.
Technical issues would involve for example the apache.org domain, and all the security issues from decades worth of links pointing to it.
The irony is that the name is much worse than just the logo. Feathers are pretty common, even if they're often associated with Native Americans. The word "Apache" is only one thing: the actual name of a Native tribe. So changing the logo without changing the name doesn't do much, while changing the name while keeping the logo would.
Furthermore, at Accessibility -> Accessibility Shortcut -> Color Filters, you can set it to quickly switch between color and grayscale when triple-pressing the main button. Helpful if you need color for a second.
1. Java does not allow to implement new interfaces for classes without modifying their signature - much more limiting than Rusts foreign trait rule. You cannot make a foreign class implement your new interface.
2. Java does not allow to create wrappers without incurring a significant memory overhead. A wrapper will consume at least 32 bytes of memory on 64-bit systems just for itself, when in Rust this can be 0.
3. Even if you define a wrapper, it would be way less ergonomic than in Rust - there is nothing like AsRef / Deref / From / Into etc machinery in Java.
That's a quirk of the language, sure, but it's barely an issue, and definitely not a worse issue. Don't get many wrong, Java has many issues, but this barely qualifies.
You don't compare non-primitives (which boxed integers are) with == in Java, you use the equals method.
You definitely shouldn't compare them that way. But it still allows you to. That becomes a fairly big issue where you have the behavior working when you test it out and suddenly it doesn't work when the values become larger. Sure, an experienced Java developer will know this. How about a developer that is new to the language? Not as likely. I've personally lost over 6 hours to that one years and years ago.
CPython has the same thing, although with reverse syntax: you can use is to compare -5 to 256 rather than ==. I assume Java is also doing some caching of that int range for speed reasons.
What I really like in the space is what OCaml and Smalltalk do, where ints are full objects unto themselves with essentially a bit in the object header that says "interpret the rest of this object header as an int and if you need to do object style ops, you don't need a pointer to the class as the class is int", so there's no boxed versus unboxed int distinction in the first place. So primitive types versus class types exists at the VM level, but not the language level.
Obviously Java doesn't have the luxury of that decision at this point. But a lot of goofy parts of languages are string of fairly rational choices with unintended consequences.
You're not supposed to, but I've certainly found code out there that does use == to compare boxed integers because the test cases they used happen to work.
will have you ending up with val1 and val2 being equal with ==, but val3 and val4 won't be.
The general reply is 'you're holding it wrong', but that doesn't make it any less absurd. That's what the PHPers say about "123" < "456A" < "78" < "123".
"68,000 iterations of an empty loop in a millisecond" The factor of 1000 comes from the conversion from seconds in the question, to milliseconds in the blurb.
RO water is demineralized and the pH is impacted. It is not a healthy drinking water outside of occasional use. It is also not appetizing and thus it's easy to become dehydrated.
After years of RO water I switched to spring water due to health issues and I will never look back.
Of course, it is insanely expensive to drink 3L of spring water and so frustrating to not have unpoisoned water from the tap.
There are certain models which have a sixth stage to remineralize the water and balance the pH.
Also relying on municipal water for mineralization is a bad argument. The minerals in water supplies is highly localized, or drinking tap water could leave you deficient in one or more minerals depending just depending on where you live.
It won't be used for showering, bathing, flushing toilets, washing clothes, washing dishes, watering plants, washing cars, filling pools, or other outdoor water usage. How much does it increase a household's water usage?
I think that's improved, at least according to product literature (I haven't tested it myself), however:
The latest generation of small under-sink reverse osmosis filters claim to waste only 1 gallon for every 2 gallons of usable water. Still bad but much better than before.
[1] https://viper.cs.columbia.edu/static/viper_paper.pdf