Please, no. Often when writing code I need the API reference and only the API reference. I know what I want to do and how to do it, I just need a quick check of the exact order of arguments or exact symbol names. I don't need to try to sift that out of commentary. Likewise when I'm learning how to use the library I'm more interested in the overall view. I don't need to know the exact names of the options for a call, only what the options are for. I expect the code in the user's guide to be accurate, but I don't want the same things out of it that I want out of the API reference.

Except for the bit where it does that caching for a loop where each lookup only occurs once. Because everybody caches lookups, so that must be the right thing to do (it's the most likely thing to happen) in a case where the cache is never used. Riiiiight...

Something critical to note: intent is the most important thing to document when it comes to software. You can see what it does by reading the code, that's straightforward. What I need to know most, both when writing software and maintaining it later, is why it's doing that. What's it supposed to be doing? Why is it doing it in that way? What were the alternatives and why weren't they chosen? How is it supposed to be used by code that calls it? An LLM can't generate any of that just from the code.

This is why traditionally software libraries have had two separate pieces of documentation: an API reference that details every call and it's arguments and results, and a user's guide that lays out how and why to use the library.

For criminal negligence by foisting their QA and QC upon their users instead of trained QC/QI/QA personnel.

This has been typical behavior for large companies when dealing with vulnerability reports for decades. Report one, they treat you as the problem. They'll try to ignore it, consider it "not exploitable", delay and deflect as long as they can get away with it, anything but address the vulnerability. And they'll never tell anyone the vulnerability exists. This only changes when they have no choice but to admit to the problem and fix it, usually when the vulnerability is being publicly exploited. They push "responsible disclosure" because it includes the reporter not making the vulnerability public until the company has a fix, which allows them to stall disclosure as long as they want.

It used to be enough to just include a reasonable deadline when reporting it, after which the reporter would make it public if the company hadn't taken some action on it. Then companies started threatening and then taking legal action against the reporter as soon as they reported the problem, playing the deadline up as "blackmail".

So, what do you do when faced with this? The only reasonable response is to skip the company entirely and make the details public immediately. You're going to be facing retaliation from the company either way, this way the public isn't vulnerable for an extended time. And yes you include details on how to exploit the vulnerability, ideally via working code, so researchers other than the company can confirm it's a real vulnerability that's actually exploitable without having to take your word for it. No, that doesn't give the bad guys anything because remember the working assumption for vulnerabilities: if a good guy has found it, the bad guys already know about it and are using it. Remember that when the company whines.

> I am not paying taxes for the purpose of having feds violate the law, national or international.

I assure you, yes you are.

What you mean is, you don't WANT your taxes to pay for those things.

But they do. And they always will.

They'll make a deal with the king to promote more non woke content.

Well, at least that would still be some progress....

With the growing ability to run local models at home on your own hardware, especially if you have Apple Silicon computers....I'm wondering if soon we'll see a LARGE drop in subscriptions to the Frontier models?

From what I'm seeing these local models can do what about 98% of the populace needs....and you aren't sharing your data with a corporation that is just sucking up all your data into their AI?

It's not because you were born different than me. Your body adapts to however you eat. It responds well to your typical diet because that's what it's used to. If you switch to a different diet there will be a short period of your body being confused and telling you to go back to what it knows. Then it will adapt to the new diet, and you'll find eating healthy food feels great.

I consider my regular diet to be for the most part Healthy!!

My blood work numbers verify this...

I like veggies, I try to eat what's in season, I mix this in with a very LOW carb diet...ditching most all grains and leaning Keto towards the carnivore side of things.

I like to cook and most all I consume is cooked from scratch.

Someone rapes your mother, and the police know who it was (and thus his license), but they don't know where he is.

Are you seriously going to argue "it doesn't matter if we could catch your mother's rapist using new technology"?

No..what matters is they get a fucking warrant to then access any information they want.

They should not just have dragnet type data to they can just look through to find a crime.....they should need probably cause, and get warrants....you know, like the US Constitution says?

Crimes go unsolved every day! Serious crimes

That sucks.

BUT....it is still MORE important to protect our constitutional rights,.....dragnets without specific warrants cannot be tolerated.....

ok, if the teddybear eyes were not made in one country the fur made in another the stuffing made in another the packaging made in another then all assembled in yet another.....it would cost 20 times more.. because we can't afford to pay workers to do so..... we would need to find an alternative to the teddybear. like a block of wood or an old sock. do you understand that.....?

Really?

It really wasn't THAT long ago that in the US we did precisely that...we make pretty much EVERYTHING in country....go back to look at the 70's and 60's...etc.

We make most of what we consumed....no reason we couldn't do it again...

The US is betting on magic to catch insider trading in prediction markets.

Electric bikes get far better range per watt. I can get 45 miles on a 500Wh battery without pedal assist, putting my consumption at ~12Wh per mile.

Like this is so basic of a thought exercise that anyone with a brain (or anyone that owns an e-bike) can see this story is utter bullshit.