I see what you mean now. The way you phrased it came off as much more a critique of the language used and/or the developers using it, rather than the simple fact of it being a rewrite of a complex tool.
Also does `sudo` not have a spec or any existing unit tests for the previous vulnerabilities that they can benefit from? I'd be pretty shocked if there wasn't a lot of regression testing and documentation available to anyone implementing something this vital.
You seem to think the issue is noise, but have you considered noise might just be the most noticeable symptom of general city living? i.e. having much less personal space, nature, privacy, and free time to spend in them?
Well, 0 isn't really possible, but assuming you're just asking "What would the impact be on the world if me made matrix multiplication trivial" in the same way that people ask what making a room temperature superconductor would do for us.
The answer is quite a lot in computing terms, matrix multiplication is used everywhere, most notably at the moment, neural networks use almost entirely matrix multiplication, so their power consumption would drop almost entirely, and correspondingly we could scale them up enormously, your phone could run GPT5 locally as long as it had the storage space, high fidelity computer vision everywhere would become trivial, Google Glass might even become useful.
Previously very limited engineering simulations like weather forecasting would improve by leaps and bounds.
Basically everything would change all at once because we'd have effectively made p = np, any problem you can turn into a matrix multiplication (so basically most maths problems) would become solvable.
At the moment we use hardware like GPU's and TPU's in the case of AI to make matrix multiplication much quicker and the companies that make them have recently become some of the biggest in the world because it's so important to everything we do now to be able to multiply matrices quickly.
> Most real world buttons are elevated off the surface to let us know it is pressable, but digital buttons now just have a white or colored pill shape around it. I can't recall the last time I saw a pill shaped button in the real world.
Well not really, real world buttons are elevated off the surface because of the practicalities of producing buttons and attaching them to a surface, some of the material has to be above the surface and some below for it to clamp on. Buttons are also usually produced as separate components and thus tend to be round or square because it's more mechanically simple and suits the most use cases, labels can be put around the button.
Computers have completely different mechanics, all buttons can be a bespoke size and shape, and they're inherently not tactile, the pill shape is just the easiest way to allow a button with variable width for variable font sized text, because it's easier to put the text on the button itself digitally than irl.
Microsoft teams doesn't load slowly because of the animations, you can turn all of them off if you mess around with the settings and your windows registry enough. It loads slowly because MS have a huge incentive to keep adding features and almost no incentive to optimise it because the software is almost always purchased by large institutions, half of whom have vendor lock in already, and imposed on the people who actually use it day to day, who have no power to change it.
In theory that would work but compilers and toolchains are far too clever now and always liable to change, so there's no way to know that in the future it won't be optimised back into shortcutting and revealing the timings.
A friend of mine has a literal heapmap, i.e. an infrared thermal camera, and that actually displays obvious outliers in striped red and white like digital camcorders show overexposed areas. It's really useful because it works both as an alert for hotspots, and also as a reminder to ignore them.
Most of them are bullshit, and the ones that aren't are ripe and ready to be used to bullshit people.
Every new kind of forensics is treated like it's going to be the solution to solving crime, when what it really is, is yet another excuse not to put the time and effort into investigation, the one thing that actually solves crimes.
CCTV has the same problem, we think it will solve crimes, when it can actually do a lot, but we constantly see cases of crimes happening in public or on camera where the police haven't even taken the half hour it would take to ask local businesses for their footage. And when they even do _that_, then they don't rarely bother to follow up leads.
Policing is just an endless, endless stream of people with what are actually very important jobs who only go into it for exactly the wrong reasons.
Complete noob question, but if it never goes away how does it get into chickens? It sounds like your point and this article combined are implying that having chickens (whose eggs you don't eat but who do eat the bugs) would actually be a method of removing lead from the land?
> The question is whether we can recognize and want to solve the problems imo. Today our media seems incapable of highlighting issues. The media pushes a narrative to effect social change (ie political); rather than presents the issues.
Interesting. I actually have a completely opposite theory of media. In my experience and research, the way that news media effect change actually _is_ to make narratives and more importantly, bang on and on about them for quite possibly years.
Obviously, me being in the UK, it might be different. But I can find countless examples of the media just presenting issues neutrally and absolutely nothing happening. Because people presented with just an issue simply go "damn, that's crazy, someone should do something about that", and then forget it unless it's about dogs.
But the success cases of the media truly affecting change (I'd list some example but they're all UK cases. A big one is one of our papers spent years pushing for an investigation into a famous case of a mass death at a football match where the police blamed the victims for looting corpses and attacking people to deflect from them not acting in time.) But they all seem to include specifically _finding_ narratives to frame stories with and basically telling them again and again with constant calls to action and searching out every new detail about the story that can have anything done about it.
This is why the NRA are so incredibly effective at making change, they bang on and on about one thing and tell their members whenever anything they can show up to is happening and exactly what to say and do to disrupt or prevent it.
> Keyword here is "once", kids love it _once_ they're there. The point is that -at the time when the parent is asking the kid to stop what they're doing and shower- they (don't want to / don't understand why they should / etc...) stop what they're doing.
Yeah but that seems like a completely different concept from delaying though, they're not any _more_ gratified being in the bath than they would've been playing tag or whatever they were doing before. And again it doesn't apply if you make it not something regular they have to do, getting kids to change what they're doing like swapping games isn't anywhere near as hard as getting kids to swap games where one of them is a bath.
> Take a look at the Stanford marshmallow experiment[1].
I know all about the Stanford Marshmallow experiment, it's a miserable abortion of an experiment that everyone talks about like received wisdom when every attempt to repeat it's long term findings has like half the effect if you account for even the slightest confounding variables.
(Sorry I'm dunking on it so much, I had to write a paper on it during my degree, everything they found about the kids doing better in life because they could delay gratification completely disappears once you realise that the kids who could wait were just the kids who grew up with more money and never had to worry about food at all, and once you account for parental income and stability you find out the differences in life outcomes are entirely caused by familial wealth.)
Read the follow up studies section if you want to know what I'm talking about, some of the confounding variables they didn't account for include "early cognitive ability and behaviour, family background, and home environment" but also trust in the researcher, if the child had had a promise broken by an adult even _kind of_ recently they were far more likely to fail the test.
Also having read a lot of those studies for that paper, I can say that even the Wikipedia article feels a bit generous to it.
</rant>
> There's nothing inherent in what the word discipline means that signifies anything regarding doing what needs to be done. It's more about doing what you understand to be good for you later, even if you don't fully (or irrationally) don't want to do now, specifically if it's a small sacrifice now for a greater reward later.
Yeah that sounds right actually. I never thought of it like that, thank you.
> I think the authors just need to find an easy way to say something new, and what is more easy than going against something "common"?
I'm sure some of them do, but having seen first hand the damage to productivity and happiness these "common behaviours" can do to people who don't have my personality type, the books deconstructing them and putting them back together for people you start to realise are just another kind of productivity guide but for atypical people.
There are lots of books deconstructing ordinary weight loss advice for people with eating disorders as well, the thing is that once you get cynical enough you start to realise that they really are just the other side of the same coin, the goal is the same "tell people how to get to a healthy weight" just with different perspective.
It took a whole hell of a lot of "deconstructing common behaviours" for people to settle on not beating children in schools, we didn't get rid of the concept of discipline and punishment, we just picked up a new, more universal framework that works better.
Sorry I wasn't clear about what I mean. I don't mean the ends, I mean the means. like exercising, or studying, or even brushing my fucking teeth have never in my life stopped being a manual decision. I want the ends obviously, like everyone else does, want them a lot in fact, but discipline just seems like an impossible thing for me because it _never_ seems to stop needing motivation to do things I need to do however long of a streak I do manage to build.
I've heard this explanation so many times but it feels like it has an enormous missing piece, like, maybe I just have fucking ADHD or something but never in my life has doing things and going places I don't want to ever gotten easier with repetition or consistency, it still needs motivation because ability to get up and do things is what motivation _is_.
Unless by discipline people mean literally disciplining myself when I fail I'm just gonna remain confused.