This is left lane driving policy. I am like this, and I was not at first. What makes you drive like this is rush hour traffic. "Move up the lane or move out of the lane" is the sentiment, basically. As others have noted, it is essentially an adversarial process. If you drive nice, people cut in front and you're unable to drive nice to both those behind you and in front.
If you have to keep significantly slowing down to get the gap back, that's perfectly nice to the people in front of you but it's not nice to the people behind you.
Not to be dismissive, but the "agents discussing how to get E2E encryption" is very obviously an echo of human conversations. You are not watching an AI speak to another.
That is not what this was. You have been firing your fireplace, now you put on a sweater and you suddenly don't want to fire so much. Maybe that's not bad, but a return to normal. That was the proposition. Is it true, who knows. Case by case question.
-4 makes sense if you understand that the input -2 is a unary minus operation. So typing -2 then hitting square only squares 2, not (-2). This is the same in eg Python so I'm not sure it's very controversial. I agree it's unexpected, though.
At no point in the current expression you wrote "-", though. It may make sense that if you type [-] [2] [x^2] [=] then you get -(2²) = -4, but if your current answer is already -2, then tapping x² should result in (ans)^2 = (-2)^2 = 4. Splitting your current answer into a separate unary [-] as in - (2²) makes absolutely no sense.
Most calculators, even CAS ones, simply get this always right. But sadly this is not the first "desktop" calculator that I see getting this completely wrong. And it makes some results outright wrong!
"-4 makes sense if you consider that the calculator is so damn stupid it ignores every convention every single calculator has made in the past hundred years and instead copies behavior of a dumbass language" isn't exactly the praise you think it is.
The relationship between dairy/meat and inflammation is more nuanced than that. While some studies show associations with inflammatory markers, others find neutral or even anti-inflammatory effects depending on the type (e.g., grass-fed vs grain-fed, fermented vs non-fermented dairy) and individual metabolic context.
You're right that ratios matter enormously, but optimal ratios vary significantly by individual - genetics, activity level, metabolic health, and existing conditions all play roles. The overconsumption concern is valid for processed meats and in the context of sedentary lifestyles with excess calories, but the picture is less clear for whole-food animal proteins in balanced diets.
The real issue might be less about meat/dairy per se and more about displacement of other beneficial foods (fiber, polyphenols, etc) and overall dietary patterns. Many Americans do overconsume calories generally, but some subpopulations (elderly, athletes, those on restricted diets) may actually benefit from more protein.
> When C code is run in machines capable of failing with gruesome death, its unsafeness may indeed result in gruesome death.
And yet, it never does. It's been powering those types of machines likely longer than you have been alive, and the one exception I can think of where lives were lost, the experts found that the development process was at fault, not the language.
If it was as bad as you make out, we'd have many many many occurrences of this starting in the 80s. We don't.
How was this flamebait? It is an example of how bad programming choices/assumptions/guardrails costs lives, a counterargument to the statement of 'And yet, it never does'. Splitting hairs if the language is C or assembly is missing the spirit of the argument, as both those languages share the linguistic footguns that made this horrible situation happen (but hey, it _was_ the 80s and choices of languages was limited!). Though, even allowing the "well ackuacally" cop-out argument, it is trivial to find examples of code in C causing failures due to out-of-bounds usage of memory; these bugs are found constantly (and reported here, on HN!). Now, you would need to argue, "well _none_ of those programs are used in life-saving tech" or "well _none_ of those failures would, could, or did cause injury", to which I call shenanigans. The link drop was meant to do just that.
We need to agree to disagree on this one; the claim that C is fine and does not cause harm due to its multitude of foot-guns, I think, is an egregious and false claim. So don't make false claims and don't post toxic positivity, I guess?
Politics and leadership is a responsibility. By avoiding it, you're setting a bad example. Once you know how an organization works, you should help lead it.
If we consider a family, you're essentially saying you'll only "do the work": brush teeth, feed kids, clean up, but not take on any responsibilities for the actual goals of the family. Not pushing to have your kids learn things, just executing somebody else's ideas, driving them to sports; not improving the living situation by perhaps investigating if you should get a bigger car. Nothing leading, only executing the ideas of your spouse.
I exaggerate of course, but there is something there.
You say that as if politics is optional. It isn't, decisions need to be made and politics is the process of making those decisions: who decides, and why.
In academia, for example, there is less politics because the publishing system sort of becomes the decision process. You apply with your ideas in the form of papers, the referees decide if your ideas are good enough (and demonstrated well enough) for the wider audience to even get to see. Then some politics, a popularity contest. But crucially this system famously leads to a LOT of resources being wasted, good research that never goes anywhere because nobody cares about it, or bad research that does nothing but everyone cares (cold fusion).
Politics is just a name for how we decide things. And yes, it sucks, but that's because we suck.
With this understanding of academia, you are perfectly suited to doing software development for them, because if you think there is "less politics" in academia, you are being foolish.
Academia is notorious for politics, especially around tenure and grants, scholarships, etc.
Publication politics are just a small part of that, but even there, working out which name goes in what order of the authorship of the paper is political.
Academia is not more notorious for politics than a corporate job, in my opinion. I've done both. Academia tries its very best to be meritocratic if anything. There is of course some degree of politics, it is inevitable, which was the point I was trying to make.
reply