You, y'all (small close group), y'all all (larger, further group), and "all y'all" — Southeast Texas (coastal) dialect form that showed up about 25 yrs ago. I suspect it might've been there all along, but only became acceptable at that point?
Another 100+ years, and this'll be some solid grammar.
I struggled with this when I was a school teacher. English lacks a good way to clarify you are addressing a group vs one person, which comes up a lot in a classroom. “Class, you…” is clunky, “You guys…” has obvious issues, and y’all or any other contraction is generally considered bad grammar. I generally went with y’all. Kids would laugh about it, but that seemed to help get their attention.
Surely, you knew all of your students' names and if you were addressing one person, you could've used their name. Addressing the class as merely "class" seems adequate as well. I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where you are forced to use "you" ambiguously.
"You in the back" has the same level of specificity. Other options include (again) naming names or calling out a more specific location "You in the back row".
No, because "you in the back" could refer to just one person in the back, instead of several. So "y'all in the back" is more specific. (Of course names are an option in this context.)
Yes, this is a case where you aren't forced to use "you" ambiguously in that context.
No, because "you in the back" could refer to just one person in the back, instead of several.
If you meant to address one person, you'd have said that one person's name, instead of voluntarily introducing ambiguity to the situation. Context & body language also makes this obvious. If you meant one person, you'd be making eye contact with one person instead of a group of people, etc. Students also know if they're paying attention or not. "The back" is not a specific area.
You could vary the heights, but it would have an effect on "clutch power" (how well the bricks stick together), and Lego is very big on making sure that's up to standard. Its often what separates Lego bricks from clones. Also you'd struggle to make a kind of braille pattern on some pieces, like 1x1 bricks.
You could try to make the tops of the bumps textured, but that's where Lego puts their trademark, and I don't think they'd compromise on that, since its another protection against fake bricks that claim they're Lego but are worse. I also don't know how well you could feel textural differences in an area that small
Injection molding manuals long ago suggested putting some text like the trademark around the point the sprue enters. Camouflage. I had a little Aha moment when I read that and recalled noticing the dimple on old bricks.
With some exceptions (80s plates with sprue on short end) I expect to find the sprue mark on a corner stud.
Anyhow I'm imagining after-market ways to add texture.
I think that idea is worth testing. Putting a symbol on top of each stud. There could be a tactile symbol per color.
I imagine an aftermarket machine to heat-stamp this on. It would have to be very precise. Pressure would displace plastic and easily change the clutch power.
I am not against the general use of AI code. Quite simply, my view is that all relevant context for a review should be disclosed in the PR.
AI and humans are not the same as authors of PRs. As an obvious example: one of the important functions of the PR process is to teach the writer about how to code in this project but LLMs fundamentally don't learn the same way as humans so there's a meaningful difference in context between humans and AIs.
If a human takes the care to really understand and assume authorship of the PR then it's not really an issue (and if they do, they could easily modify the Claude messages to remove "generated by Claude" notes manually) but instead it seems that Claude is just hiding relevant context from the reviewer. PRs without relevant context are always frustrating.
What's really tricky with the legal protections area is this: 90% of the value of the S&P 500 is intangible. Meaning if you suck out the book value (10%), the rest is brand, IP, rights, sources & methods, etc. So if a company can't protect that, it's not particularly valuable anymore. Maybe we will see a shift back to tangible assets and book value (25,000 $8MM Vera Rubin machines) and away from intangibles...
I think this is just the beginning so people are apprehensive, rightfully so, at this stage. I agree with you that AI use should be disclosed but using the commit message as a billboard for Anthropic hell no. Go put an add on the free tier.
You don't generally commit compiled code to your VCS. If you do need to commit a binary for whatever reason, yeah it makes sense to explain how the binary was generated.
You're off by an order of magnitude. It's a few hundred watts; an EV is consuming 10s of kilowatts. (Ignore the watt-watt/hour sloppiness, pls.) To charge my car 60% would take about 2 months. Ambient needs (battery cooling) would eat up more than I'd get back. At best it extends idle sit time.
How can a question be "off"? :D I literally used N% as to avoid replies like this, but seems you managed anyways...
> To charge my car 60% would take about 2 months.
Depends heavily on where you park and where in the world you live, wouldn't it? I use my car maybe 2-3 hours per week, most of the time it's just standing outside in sunny Spain, would that change the calculation anything?
Once there's a pattern of abuse, you can go after the execs personally for purposes of the carrying out of justice. Courts don't like the idea of bad actors hiding themselves behind corporations. You don't even need to "piece the veil" — you just go straight for the Zuck.
Will literally never happen. It's impossible. I'm not talking figuratively impossible. At his level of wealth and influence, there are good odds he could murder someone on live stream and walk away. You are dangerously underestimating the influence the rich have in every aspect of society and law.
Damn! I just nuked a long conversation with ChatGPT outlining my pet theory that with changes in scale of energy regimes (labor->wind/water->coal->oil->solar) we get an excess energetic capacity that means our entertainment systems can't handle! That excess spills out as elite political retrenchment, entertainment jealousy, and (finally) violence, expanded civil rights, and a new entertainment regime.
Mostly tongue in cheek... but the whole thing hangs together.
We often talk about "aligning models" or training them, little attention is paid to how models align/train _us_ as we interact with them. The reward functions they're trained under get "backpropagated" into our own brain, the language they use becomes familiar like a worn glove, and we learn not to step on any of their guardrails.
I know "serde" is a take on "codec" but *rewrite* was right there! Also, as long as I'm whinging about naming? 'print' and 'parse' are five letter p words in a bidirectional relationship. Oh! Oh! push, peek, poke, ... pull! It even makes more sense than pop! And it's four letters!
Restricted representative size, gerrymandering, FPTP voting, businesses with resident/citizen rights, the restriction of 42 U.S.C. 1983 to not cover Federal actors...
Hot take: Trump's denialism of 2020 and the use of '3rd term' is so that they can make a case that he can have a '4th term' -- that the will of the people to elect him overrides the constitutional limits of Presidency.
Another 100+ years, and this'll be some solid grammar.
reply