WTF Bites
-
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
@Gąska Okay, one last reply: You do realize that we have witnessed both micro- and macro-evolution? And that, before we had gene manipulation, pretty much all of the seed manipulation techniques for plants relied on using radioactivity to induce random mutations to get a beneficial and usable mutation?
And that the timescales involved are massive?
Didn't think so.
I said above, which you must have ignored, that creationists don't doubt that evolution exists and is possible, but simply doubt that it's how the world got into its current state of affairs.
They also think that dinosaur fossils were put in the ground by a magician
last thursdayhundreds and hundreds of years ago, so
.Pop culture is the wrong place to get a realistic idea of what rational creationists believe. Something more like Answers in Genesis would be a better starting place.
-
@Zerosquare said in WTF Bites:
I absolutely hate having to deal with build processes.
So do I. Especially since we switched from a small-scale one that I was very familiar with (having written large bits of it -- not that I liked doing it, but at least I was familiar with all parts) to a much larger one to integrate with other software teams, that I am much, much less familiar with.
"I'll use it, but don't expect me to debug it when it breaks."
I don't expect most devs to be able to debug, let alone fix or improve, our build process. I am myself not really able to do it, except sometimes someone has to do it so I don't have much choice...
But I'd still blame
, because there are limits.Yes, that's really what got me. Not being familiar with a build system, that's fine. Not even understanding what the tons of CMake macros in there do, that's OK. Not even knowing the concept of
make, however, that's beyond what I can accept. Not having a shred of curiosity about it is even worse.(and really, that last one is what bugs me about
, he has absolutely zero curiosity or initiative...)
-
-
@DCoder the Tesla thread is
but also, 
are people doing investing that much money they can't afford to lose in a single stock, especially one like Tesla?
-
@ben_lubar said in WTF Bites:
@Zerosquare said in WTF Bites:
I absolutely hate having to deal with build processes. I find them invariably clunky, overcomplicated and headache-inducing when they fail to work ; I once told a colleague who pushed a fancy CMake-based process: "I'll use it, but don't expect me to debug it when it breaks."
But I'd still blame
, because there are limits.Hey, who needs to worry about build processes? Just send in your pull request and https://buildmaster.lubar.me/ builds it for you.
The interface is a little janky. Why can't you just click on the exclaimation mark to see the build error? You have to drill down into 3 menus and scroll a lot. Also the last step to seeing the 'Execution Details' is to click on a hyperlinked date? Not very intuitive.
Looks pretty slick apart from that though.
-
Goddamnit Gradle, why are you so utterly crap:
app:build.gradle:
project:build.gradle:
Where the hell are you getting the value from? How is this even possible???
Edit: yes, if you comment the line out then it refuses to build. I don't even
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
but also,
are people doing investing that much money they can't afford to lose in a single stock, especially one like Tesla?I believe Nathan Poe may have something to do with some of those replies...
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
-
Wolves and dogs are of the same kind of animal, though. Darwin's finches were all still finches. There are no evidences of any sort of "intermediate" between any of the myriad kinds of animals, whether extant or historical.
Yes, there are, tons of them. It's just that whenever you say "these are the same, but A and B are different and there's no intermediates between them" and someone comes along and actually finds (A+B)/2 you'll
and say "but these are different, where's (3A+B)/4?". Ad infinitum.Are elephants and giraffes the same? No.
Is there a direct link between them? No.
Is there a chain of evolution that can be traced back to a common ancestor? Yes. Depending on how well exactly these two are studied, the links might be smaller or larger. But you're going to repeat that argument until you get "that's a brown labrador, this is a black labrador. They're not related."Does that chain go back to longer than 6000 years ago? Oh shit, that's not even possible!!
-
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in WTF Bites:
@DCoder the Tesla thread is
but also, are people doing investing that much money they can't afford to lose in a single stock, especially one like Tesla?TSLA is currently exactly where it was 6 months ago and slightly below 1 year ago. Even if they invested at the worst possible time it's down "only" 28%. I don't see how that can lose you "30 years of your life savings", unless you've invested 100 years of your life savings.
Or you've bought derivatives multiplying your loss. Guess then you really don't know what you're doing.
-
@topspin
Or if you're buying in, freaking out (or hitting a stop loss limit) and selling when the stock takes a bath, buying back in, repeat.Especially since that doubles your source of losses, getting eaten by commissions as well.
-
@izzion Yeah, that seems a bit like "derivatives, badly implemented yourself".
Disclaimer: I may not know what I'm talking about.
-
(and really, that last one is what bugs me about
, he has absolutely zero curiosity or initiative...)Those people are the worst.
-
@topspin
Heh, yeah, you don't ;)So, basically, one of the primary tools for a semi-active investor trading in a particular stock is a "stop-loss order", which is an instruction provided to your broker to sell some or all of your position if the price drops below a certain threshold. Say you're purchasing at $100/share, you might enter a stop-loss at $90 to ensure you don't lose more than 10% of your position... plus commissions plus any more drop that happens before your stock actually sells while the bottom is falling out, but it at least gives you a reasonable chance of getting out before things go to zero when things are going to shit.
Of course, if you're a semi-active investor who's investing in a company because you believe in them, rather than out of any financial rationality, then it's quite likely that if you get flushed by a stop-loss, then after the stock recovers a little bit you'll buy back in, since the reason for your investment still exists. Which would be more of an issue with the fact that you're setting your stop-loss too aggressively, but if you're kind of cargo cult investing to begin with, it's not completely unreasonable to just keep setting those 90% stop-loss orders without thinking about why you use a stop-loss to begin with and whether or not it's really helping you with your current investment.
-
All you need to do is… stop talking…
...and selling on the downturns. Seriously, people, you don't do risky short term investing with your life savings!
-
-
Some (probably a very small part, but definitely non-zero) of that does actually work, whether it be through the placebo effect, unintended side effects (e.g. arnica for itches – the act of rubbing a lotion onto the itchy patch is likely the main symptom reliever), or accident of the shared symptom of condition with effect of "treatment" (e.g. something that causes gastrointestinal agitation as "treatment" for belly cramps, to help the system flush stuff through, IFF the cramps are the result of a gastrointestinal issue in the first place).
Except that once it's been homeopathically diluted, you're lucky if it has enough of the active ingredient in it to produce any such real effects at all.
-
@anotherusername He doesn't understand what Homeopathy is about. If there's actually an active ingredient in there it's not Homeopathy anymore.
-
@anotherusername said in WTF Bites:
Some (probably a very small part, but definitely non-zero) of that does actually work, whether it be through the placebo effect, unintended side effects (e.g. arnica for itches – the act of rubbing a lotion onto the itchy patch is likely the main symptom reliever), or accident of the shared symptom of condition with effect of "treatment" (e.g. something that causes gastrointestinal agitation as "treatment" for belly cramps, to help the system flush stuff through, IFF the cramps are the result of a gastrointestinal issue in the first place).
Except that once it's been homeopathically diluted, you're lucky if it has enough of the active ingredient in it to produce any such real effects at all.
If it had, it wouldn't be a homeopathic dilution.
-
@anotherusername said in WTF Bites:
Some (probably a very small part, but definitely non-zero) of that does actually work, whether it be through the placebo effect, unintended side effects (e.g. arnica for itches – the act of rubbing a lotion onto the itchy patch is likely the main symptom reliever), or accident of the shared symptom of condition with effect of "treatment" (e.g. something that causes gastrointestinal agitation as "treatment" for belly cramps, to help the system flush stuff through, IFF the cramps are the result of a gastrointestinal issue in the first place).
Except that once it's been homeopathically diluted, you're lucky if it has enough of the active ingredient in it to produce any such real effects at all.
@anotherusername He doesn't understand what Homeopathy is about. If there's actually an active ingredient in there it's not Homeopathy anymore.
If it had, it wouldn't be a homeopathic dilution.
The "lower strength" (to use their terminology) dilutions can still have a teeny bit of the active ingredient.
The primary principle in homeopathy is the idea that "like treats like" — that a natural substance that causes the same symptoms as any given health issue can be used to treat those very symptoms.
-
a natural substance that causes the same symptoms as any given health issue can be used to treat those very symptoms.
IOW, if a substance kill you, a very small dose of that same substance will resuscitate you
-
@anotherusername said in WTF Bites:
Some (probably a very small part, but definitely non-zero) of that does actually work, whether it be through the placebo effect, unintended side effects (e.g. arnica for itches – the act of rubbing a lotion onto the itchy patch is likely the main symptom reliever), or accident of the shared symptom of condition with effect of "treatment" (e.g. something that causes gastrointestinal agitation as "treatment" for belly cramps, to help the system flush stuff through, IFF the cramps are the result of a gastrointestinal issue in the first place).
Except that once it's been homeopathically diluted, you're lucky if it has enough of the active ingredient in it to produce any such real effects at all.
@anotherusername He doesn't understand what Homeopathy is about. If there's actually an active ingredient in there it's not Homeopathy anymore.
If it had, it wouldn't be a homeopathic dilution.
The "lower strength" (to use their terminology) dilutions can still have a teeny bit of the active ingredient.
The primary principle in homeopathy is the idea that "like treats like" — that a natural substance that causes the same symptoms as any given health issue can be used to treat those very symptoms.Yes, except then they go full stupid by saying that the more you dilute it the more effective it becomes. And aside from which, the "like treats like" assumption may happen to be correct in certain types of cases, but it cannot be generalized like that.
-
@anotherusername Plus, the definition of what exactly is "like" is another level of
I mean, is it only meant for "like" symptoms or is it about "like" issues or is it about "like" causes?
-
@anotherusername Plus, the definition of what exactly is "like" is another level of
I mean, is it only meant for "like" symptoms or is it about "like" issues or is it about "like" causes?
Either of the latter would require doing actual science... which we've pretty well established is not a strong point of theirs.
-
@TimeBandit said in WTF Bites:
a natural substance that causes the same symptoms as any given health issue can be used to treat those very symptoms.
IOW, if a substance kill you, a very small dose of that same substance will resuscitate you
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
Of course not. That doesn’t mean your favorite fairy tale is equally plausible as something which doesn’t involve YEC.
-
Wolves and dogs are of the same kind of animal, though. Darwin's finches were all still finches. There are no evidences of any sort of "intermediate" between any of the myriad kinds of animals, whether extant or historical.
Yes, there are, tons of them. It's just that whenever you say "these are the same, but A and B are different and there's no intermediates between them" and someone comes along and actually finds (A+B)/2 you'll
and say "but these are different, where's (3A+B)/4?". Ad infinitum.Are elephants and giraffes the same? No.
Is there a direct link between them? No.
Is there a chain of evolution that can be traced back to a common ancestor?Yes.No. Depending on how well exactly these two are studied, thelinkssets of similar physical structures might be smaller or larger.- How can one tell whether similar physical structures (besides sub-/speciation) are a result of common ancestry or convergent evolution?
- Do similar physical structures always indicate similar genetics (besides sub-/speciation)?
- At what point are similar structures considered too different to have come from a common ancestor?
- Can you point me to any such common ancestor/"transitional" creature? I will accept anything that bridges the gap between kinds of animals. To help clarify, a "kind" is approximately (though not exactly the same) as the genus or sometimes family level of the standard taxonomy.
But you're going to repeat that argument until you get "that's a brown labrador, this is a black labrador. They're not related."
No. You're trying to make an ad absurdum argument out of a strawman. I already said that dogs (which includes Labrador retrievers, whether brown or black) are of the same kind. To be clear, I have no problems with variations within the same kind. I have no problems with natural selection, per se. I just don't see how mutations even built up over time can change the creature enough to form a distinct kind without making it unviable at a point long before it even comes close to being a different kind.
Does that chain go back to longer than 6000 years ago? Oh shit, that's not even possible!!
Age of the earth is a separate issue, and I'm not going to follow that rabbit trail at this time.
-
rational creationists
LOLWUT?
Have you even looked at any of the articles? Yes, there's an obvious and direct Biblical perspective, but I think you'd be surprised at the level of scientific rigor presented.
-
The "lower strength" (to use their terminology) dilutions can still have a teeny bit of the active ingredient.
The common OTC zinc cold remedies are technically homeopathic. They do the nonsensical homeopathic concussing (or WhateverTF it's called), but they use the "weakest" homeopathic dilution, which results in just the amount of zinc you'd expect in a zinc supplement. By complying with the Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States, they are exempt from some of the testing requirements that apply to real drugs.
-
@HardwareGeek said in WTF Bites:
the nonsensical homeopathic concussing (or WhateverTF it's called)
In homeopathy, homeopathic dilution (known by practitioners as "dynamisation" or "potentisation") is a process in which a substance is diluted with alcohol or distilled water and then vigorously shaken in a process called "succussion".
Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States
Ligatures are more scientific!
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
Of course not. That doesn’t mean your favorite fairy tale is equally plausible as something which doesn’t involve YEC.
Plausibility has no meaning if we can't even tell whether anything corresponds with anything else.
-
@djls45 A "succussion" by any other name would be as worthless.
-
Forget manufacturers that don't make their stuff easy to repair.
Forget manufacturers that don't consider repairability at all.
What you need is a manufacturer that goes the extra mile to make sure it can't be repaired.(of course it's . What did you expect?)
Apple's New Proprietary Software Locks Will Kill Independent Repair on New MacBook Pros
Failure to run Apple's proprietary diagnostic software after a repair "will result in an inoperative system and an incomplete repair."
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
Of course not. That doesn’t mean your favorite fairy tale is equally plausible as something which doesn’t involve YEC.
Plausibility has no meaning if we can't even tell whether anything corresponds with anything else.
You can’t even tell anything at all, other than you exist.
That doesn’t mean that any stupid theory is equally plausible just because it’s not strictly impossible.
Why do you not believe the earth was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Because it’s stupid, that’s why.
And yet it’s just as possible as your pet theory. Therefore, yes, plausibility does have a meaning.
-
Wolves and dogs are of the same kind of animal, though. Darwin's finches were all still finches. There are no evidences of any sort of "intermediate" between any of the myriad kinds of animals, whether extant or historical.
Yes, there are, tons of them. It's just that whenever you say "these are the same, but A and B are different and there's no intermediates between them" and someone comes along and actually finds (A+B)/2 you'll
and say "but these are different, where's (3A+B)/4?". Ad infinitum.Are elephants and giraffes the same? No.
Is there a direct link between them? No.
Is there a chain of evolution that can be traced back to a common ancestor?Yes.No. Depending on how well exactly these two are studied, thelinkssets of similar physical structures might be smaller or larger.- How can one tell whether similar physical structures (besides sub-/speciation) are a result of common ancestry or convergent evolution?
- Do similar physical structures always indicate similar genetics (besides sub-/speciation)?
- At what point are similar structures considered too different to have come from a common ancestor?
- Can you point me to any such common ancestor/"transitional" creature? I will accept anything that bridges the gap between kinds of animals. To help clarify, a "kind" is approximately (though not exactly the same) as the genus or sometimes family level of the standard taxonomy.
But you're going to repeat that argument until you get "that's a brown labrador, this is a black labrador. They're not related."
No. You're trying to make an ad absurdum argument out of a strawman. I already said that dogs (which includes Labrador retrievers, whether brown or black) are of the same kind. To be clear, I have no problems with variations within the same kind. I have no problems with natural selection, per se. I just don't see how mutations even built up over time can change the creature enough to form a distinct kind without making it unviable at a point long before it even comes close to being a different kind.
Because you’ve reached that conclusion beforehand and looking for support afterwards.
No matter what links a biologist will point you at, they’ll either be close enough that you’ll say those are the same kind anyway or far enough apart that you’ll say there’s a missing link in between.
-
Why do you not believe the earth was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Because it’s stupid, that’s why.
Actually, she was a white Alicorn, but the Earth wasn't really the important part...
-
Our minds, at least, have to be at least partially separate from the normal cause-effect chain of physical events
No.
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
Of course not. That doesn’t mean your favorite fairy tale is equally plausible as something which doesn’t involve YEC.
Plausibility has no meaning if we can't even tell whether anything corresponds with anything else.
You can’t even tell anything at all, other than you exist.
That doesn’t mean that any stupid theory is equally plausible just because it’s not strictly impossible.
Why do you not believe the earth was created by an Invisible Pink Unicorn? Because it’s stupid, that’s why.
And yet it’s just as possible as your pet theory. Therefore, yes, plausibility does have a meaning.Plausibility only has a meaning if it is possible to correlate thoughts about reality with the actual state of reality. In order to do that, the part that you call "you" must be able to "step back" and recognize that "you" have been thinking thoughts, that those thoughts are about something, that that something is real, and that "your" thoughts accurately (or inaccurately) describe the real thing.
Otherwise, any thought you have is just a thing that happened to occur to you, and is no different in importance or significance than any other sensation you feel. Only if you can actually choose to think and what to think about can you meaningfully say whether something is plausible.
-
Git 2.14.5, 2.15.3, 2.16.5, 2.17.2, 2.18.1, and 2.19.1
These releases fix a security flaw (CVE-2018-17456), which allowed an attacker to execute arbitrary code by crafting a malicious .gitmodules file in a project cloned with --recurse-submodules.
When running "git clone --recurse-submodules", Git parses the supplied .gitmodules file for a URL field and blindly passes it as an argument to a "git clone" subprocess. If the URL field is set to a string that begins with a dash, this "git clone" subprocess interprets the URL as an option. This can lead to executing an arbitrary script shipped in the superproject as the user who ran "git clone".
-
For fuck's sake… I started writing a reply to a different thread in another Chrome tab, then switched here to post that Git WTF ↑. After I submitted it,
posted it as a reply to the other thread (SuperMicro compromise). Pressing Back returned me to this thread, kept the Composer open, and this happened:
I wonder which thread this reply will end up in.It landed where it was supposed to.
-
@DCoder A full set of red boobs.
-
Git 2.14.5, 2.15.3, 2.16.5, 2.17.2, 2.18.1, and 2.19.1
These releases fix a security flaw (CVE-2018-17456), which allowed an attacker to execute arbitrary code by crafting a malicious .gitmodules file in a project cloned with --recurse-submodules.
When running "git clone --recurse-submodules", Git parses the supplied .gitmodules file for a URL field and blindly passes it as an argument to a "git clone" subprocess. If the URL field is set to a string that begins with a dash, this "git clone" subprocess interprets the URL as an option. This can lead to executing an arbitrary script shipped in the superproject as the user who ran "git clone".
Reminds me of that link @blakeyrat always posts how it’s almost impossible to write actually reliable shell scripts (not just 99% reliable).
-
@pie_flavor
Moterboat
-
Then you have no reasonable basis to conclude that your thoughts and memories actually correspond to anything in reality.
-
Reminds me of that link @blakeyrat always posts how it’s almost impossible to write actually reliable shell scripts (not just 99% reliable).
You probably mean this one, about Unix filenames:
That's not to say that shell scripts are reliable in other aspects… there's the arcane quoting/escaping mechanisms, implicit On Error Resume Nextby default, trying to produce pretty colourful output, etc. all make shell scripts a Lovecraftian environment to work with.
-
[--- insert Blakeyrant about how Mac Classic didn't have that problem in the first place here ---]
-
Ligatures are more scientific!
I like ligatures! I think they make text look better, and they help us remember the true roots of some of our words.
-
how it’s almost impossible to write actually reliable shell scripts
It's possible, but it's hellishly difficult. You're better off using a different programming language when you want reliable behaviour; a few of them are written with sufficient paranoia that they're actually safe. It's rather uncommon though, and vulnerabilities abound when someone blindly trusts something they shouldn't. (If a language wraps
popen(), that's usually highly vulnerable to shenanigans because of the extra parsing step involved that most people forget about. But Windows users shouldn't get cocky about this: launching programs on Windows is rather hard precisely because it is up to the receiving process to parse the command line rather than the caller, and there's no truly standard routine for doing so and no truly accepted standard quoting scheme… and once-only passing of structured objects after the process has launched — e.g., via COM — is a workaround and not a solution.)
-
@dkf To explain what I meant by the “wat” image, the state of neuroscience is that it has a fairly good idea what memories are made of (patterns of synapses and the strengths of activation of those synapses, both of which are resolutely physical) at least for basic memories, and work is ongoing to understand more about what higher-level memories are like. Probably more of the same if you ask me, but the details are tricky (e.g., are there specialized neurons involved or are we just talking general patterns throughout). Thoughts are trickier — in large part because we're not really sure what they are — but betting that they are non-physical would seem odd. I predict that there won't be a single neuron for anything in particular, but the interplay of different patterns of neurons and synapses will be important. (There have been found neural patterns that act as attention selectors, patterns that act as spatial and temporal pattern detectors, and other patterns that act as phase locked loops of various descriptions. How these things fit together in hierarchies that predict possible futures and plan responses to them, that's one of the absolute total frontiers of science right now.)
This stuff is fun, and really needs interdisciplinary approaches; something that looks utterly confusing to one person is very clear to someone else with a different background. And you'll never understand it by a purely full-neuron-model first approach (just like you'd never understand a Google search by starting at the level of electron movement in CMOS gates); there's too many higher levels of organisation.
Homeopathic dilutions - Wikipedia
