Other than the IEE-754 he might mean the Wat talk [1] by Gary Bernhardt which is kind of famous for poking fun at JavaScript (and it's unpredictability with things like NaN. As a JS developer myself I find it hilarious.) Though I don't know why it would need to be remade he at least referenced the talk, it seems, with the word Wat, so it's worth mentioning at least I guess
> only thing I'm missing is a jump to next root comment
That's a two step process currently when you are just going through the comments you click "root" on any sub-root-comment and then "next" on the root comment. Next will always take you to the next sibling comment (called a sibling, because it's a tree data-structure basically and sibling comes from a family tree. In fact where I said sub-root-comment I could have said descendants or children.)
EDIT: I just realized that the first child of the root doesn't have the "root" button so you have to click "parent" on it and then "next".
> Yeah i understand that but it is logically right to reply with "Tom Cruise" or any of the girls to that question because by its structure it requires only 1 of the 4 answers since it asks for a singular child right?
Yes that is correct it is logically correct to reply Tom Cruise or any of the girls, and that was their point that there are four possible answers to one question.
> Why would it have several answer when you are asking for a singular child?
By the way this quote was the focus of my GP comment since I didn't quote it there.
> Or is it like we are saying while that is logically correct, its not the actual answer and the model should reply "they have more than one child, here is the list of children" and that would be a more accurate one even though the prompt strictly asked for just 1 child?
This was not his point so I feel like we are moving the goal posts a bit, so no though that could have been what's said I don't think that's what was really being said.
> Might have several. It only has one answer if there is only one child, which appears to be the case here.
With context. It does have several which was probably GPs point, and she did not have only one child.
Quick google search turns out that Mary Lee Pfeiffer had 4 children:
Lee Ann DeVette (born 1959) (daughter)
Marian Henry (born 1960) (daughter)
Tom Cruise (born 1962) (son)
Cass Mapother (born 1964) (daughter)
So saying "Who is Mary Lee Pfeiffer's child?" would have 4 possible answers (which is several) with all known context. Whereas like GP was saying "Who is Mary Lee Pfeiffer's son?" would have 1 identifying answer, Tom Cruise with the same context.
> In this case, the correct would always include “Tom Cruise” even if it needed a clarifying “there might be others I have no knowledge of”.
The space of possible answers is more than one is all GP is saying. Mary Lee Pfeiffer had 1 son, Tom Cruise, and 3 daughters. That's why saying Who is Mary Lee Pfeiffer's son was an identity, because it strictly identifies (or singles out) Mary's son, Tom.
Kind of a weird way to draw an analogy, but in math it's kind of like |x|=2 (the absolute value of x is 2) the answer for the value of x is -2 and 2 sure you could reply that the answer is 2 and be correct (even though you would still be missing something, because the space of possible answers includes both 2 and -2). To relay that back to Mary Lee Pfeiffer saying she has Tom Cruise as a child is correct, but the actual answer could include any 4 of her children (including Tom or one of the 3 daughters) and still be correct.
Jai is not written by ai, but only its website is. It's written by a Stanford Computer-Science professor with decades of C++ and Unix/linux experience.
> [1]: Was jai written by an AI coding agent?
No. While this web site was obviously made by an LLM (ChatGPT read the man page, asked some follow-up questions, and produced a prompt from which claude code built a vitepress site), jai itself was hand implemented by a Stanford computer science professor with decades of C++ and Unix/linux experience. As an experiment, the author did previously try vibe-coding a container, but the results were disastrous and repeatedly put his machine in a state that required a reboot (e.g., recursively changing the attributes of all mounts in the wrong mount namespace). The author does use coding agents to look for bugs, get feedback, and develop tests. However, rest assured that a single human understands every line of C++ in jai.
As a jai and linux user, myself, looking at nono's os-sandbox (from here [1]) it seems nice too. Thanks for the recommend I was looking for something that might be nice on Mac and nono seems good to recommend to coworkers and the like.
I've been using jai [1] for sandboxing on linux (although I use opencode and local models and not claude code) and I'm pretty satisfied with it. It comes in three different modes [2]: casual mode, strict mode, and bare mode. Here's some descriptions of each mode:
Casual mode [3]:
> Your home directory is mounted as a copy-on-write overlay. The jailed process sees your real files, but writes go to $HOME/.jai/default.changes instead of modifying originals, except in the directory where you ran jai.
Your current working directory grants full read/write access to code in the jail (unless suppressed with -D). So files deleted there are really gone.
/tmp and /var/tmp are private.
The rest of the filesystem is read-only.
Strict mode [4]:
> The process runs as the unprivileged jai system user, not as you.
Home directory is an empty private directory at $HOME/.jai/<name>.home.
Granted directories (via -d or cwd) are exposed with id-mapped mounts — files look like they are owned by jai inside the jail.
Because the process has a different UID, it cannot read files outside your home directory that are only accessible to your user — this is where confidentiality comes from.
Bare mode [5]:
> Home directory is an empty private directory, like strict mode.
But the process runs as your user, not as jai.
This means it cannot provide confidentiality — the process can still read any file accessible to your UID outside the home directory.
I've always ran my stuff in casual so far just so my whole computer doesn't get rimraffed :P. but I'm thinking of switching to just strict mode, but haven't really vibe coded in a while so I haven't tried it yet.
I've been using VIM/NVIM on and off for a while and the one thing that made it stick for me over VSCode was LazyVim [1]. If you're missing out on something IDE like VSCode, but you love vim it's a great way to go (it can take some getting used to so hang in there). EDIT LazyVim is based off nvim by the way. If your more into videos to learn about something this is a good intro to it from Elijah Manor [2]. I have my dotfiles stored on github that I use on my different machines, and use gnu `stow` and `make` to build them and that gives me my specific lazyvim setup free and quickly after just downloading a few dependencies.
I haven't used Firefox in a bit, but I thought their devtools were pretty good, but last time I used it I used their developer edition browser [1]. I think the devtools were particularly bad when you used to have to install Firebug as a seperate part of the browser which is no longer the case [2]. For a quick view of what the developer tools currently look like you can see here [3]
My sister went to an allergist and found out she is allergic to corn/HFCS as well with similar symptoms as you (hives, vomit inducing). Corn and HFCS are in almost literally everything, so it's a really hard allergy for her to have. You say now you eat it for breakfast? What do you mean by that? Are you over your allergy and what has worked for you if so? If you could give someone going through something similar advice what would you say?
I agree the author of the site does not understand God from the aspect that a Christian would (regardless of whether he is a former Christian). So while some may say by me saying that I'm about to pull a "True Scotsman" fallacy on what a True Christian would say I would counter by saying he is merely "straw manning" what God, the Bible, and a Christian would say and is taking things out of the context of the Gospel whole.
I haven't read his whole site, but probably have counted atleast 5 times so far reading it that he quotes Mark 11:24 which has Jesus saying, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." I think the issue for non-Christians is they take that statement to be defeated by people that pray righteously and don't get what they want. However for Christians this is not an issue Jesus states in Matthew 5:45 "for [God] maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." Job is an example of this. My point is that to a Christian these two statements/ideas are not at odds though they may seem that way at first.
So, though Jesus doesn't explicitly state you don't get everything you've ever wanted just by praying for it he does state no matter who you are you good or evil you will have good and bad in your life. To me, I believe God does bless us for good/prayer just not in the way we may expect and ultimately all wrongs will be made right and justified just maybe not in this life. He is not a cosmic vending machine of which when we do a good work we are instantly gratified.
One of my main points in saying all this in a more general way is that to non-Christians The God of the Old and New Testament may seem to contradict himself, but I know there are answers to every one of those possible supposed contradictions even though not every person may immediately know the answer to every one of them.
Yes and no. Yes there are more resources, and yes they're easier to discover, but you implied that was all that GP meant, but his point was they can be hard to find still. At least resources that try and give you intuition, so that's the "no" part. In terms of your question more availability of resources in general doesn't always mean you have better odds of finding good to great available resources for giving you these intuitions. The problem we have today, I believe, is the signal to noise ratio is low to build your intuition. It's a problem one of my professors explained once that so much of grade school and even required college math for most students is filled with the solve this equation mentality that you kind of miss the purpose of a lot of what higher level math is about. Sure part of it is still solving equations, but some other parts just as an example are about discovering truths (through for example a proof) that we didn't know before hand or hadn't built the intuition for before hand and that part of math is fun, but you do need a foundation for that too. It can be disheartening to learn that so much of math kind of kills that joy, and only focuses on the foundation of it the solving of the equations.
We often find ourselves sifting through materials that always assume you have (or can figure out) the intuition and make it hard to find something that digs a little deeper and allows something to stick. This happens in math, programming, and you name it. We kind of assume the intuition is already developed most the time. Writing depends on our audience. If you're a programmer like me imagine someone trying to explain a modern and complex algorithm to you while simultaneously explaining every small part of how a program executes all the way down to machine code. That would be a horrific way to try to learn just the algorithm itself and it would be drudgery to try and fight through finishing an article or book that contained that much information, and because of that it would be a waste of the author's time writing such a thing. The simple answer is usually is to either stick with simpler examples and try to build intuition like this book does (though that doesn't mean there is no complexity in the example still due to digging into the example from a fresh perspective), or to just write a book full of rules and examples through problem sets (think like a textbook on math).
I swear this is related, but my favorite course in college was Discrete Mathematics which is sometimes titled something like Mathematics of Computer Science. The interesting thing is it was the first time in Math and at school that someone has explained to me the meaning of things that build a foundation in Logic in mathematics like "for all", "there exists", logical operators, and the negation of any of those things and what they mean. It was enlightening to say the least. It gave me an intuition behind the language of proofs. It allowed me to write my own proofs and to be able to read other proofs. Which proofs are everywhere in mathematics and understanding a proof is exactly like building an intuition of the underlying math. I couldn't believe after taking that one course that I actually understand textbooks way more often, and could understand that most the learning didn't happen by going example to example and solution to solution, but by understanding the underlying rule. Math always seemed, so much more ambiguous to me before then like the rules didn't clearly define every edge case and outcome, but they almost always certainly do.
Really neat. I was mainly curious to know when they are planning to release the self hosted docker versions of Penpot 2.0. Although I found this issue on their Github and it Looks like its coming in the next couple days hopefully [1].
Well I'm not entirely sure why they did that, Adobe is the original creators of the PDF format [1] as given by this Wikipedia article on PDFs which might mean they meant something more like a viewer for *Adobe's PDF format* rather than *Adobe's viewer* for PDFs.
The other reports and not just the knife and bar incident are really awful as well and like hidden half way down the article:
> Here's a sampling of stories Fleener shared:
> "'Last night, I was propositioned in the most graphic way I've ever heard. When I turned him down, he tried to convince me to leave with him by telling me his pregnant wife was on bedrest and I was doing her a favor.'"
> "'A leader at a firm showed me a video of 2 girls under 20 in his bedroom naked and and [sic] invited me and the other woman I was with to join him.'"
> Another female executive, Samantha Mather, wrote about the trials of more than 15 years in legal tech, from being physically accosted at a company event to countless inappropriate comments and having to avoid one-on-one meetings with some men in her industry.
> When she recruited two trusted male colleagues to stay close to her as allies, Mather said, some men pestered her anyway — or asked about her relationship with the pair.
> "You literally cannot win," she wrote on LinkedIn.
On the other hand. The headline does leave out details, but is still pretty accurate for that one scene. I guess it could say 1 person assaulted and another harassed at a tech conference. For the article mostly being focused on women being harassed by men, it's easy to miss that it was a man who was assaulted, Shimmy, (hence a different person) who got the knife pulled on him for standing up for Bier (the woman who was harassed by Cruz). I had to reread it to realize that. More people in this world should be like Shimmy (and more companies like Microsoft [atleast in this instance]) that's kind of one of the points that the article is about that it doesn't matter who you are when you see something is wrong you do something to alleviate the problem. I mean you don't need to be a hero like Shimmy necessarily, but anything you find within your power to alleviate is better than nothing. Just like the event holders should have done something about harassment happening at their event.
Apparently it's a typo for löyly a finnish word which apparently means steam [0]. The author probably only heard the word pronounced. Anyways, to find this out I merely looked up "pouring water on sauna rocks" instead of trying to look up loyle.
> The primary function of sauna rocks is to generate steam when water is poured onto them. This process, known as löyly in Finnish culture, releases the heat from the rocks in the form of steam, adding humidity to the sauna environment. This humidity helps to open the pores and create a more comfortable and relaxing experience. [1]
It's interesting to me that the focus of these verses has always been on the "impossibility" of rich men entering the kingdom of Heaven. When 2 verses later it says with God all things are possible (in reference to what He just said about the eye of the needle). In my opinion I think Jesus Christ makes it pretty clear throughout the Gospels especially in His sermon on the mount that there are diverse paths to Hell and those paths are broad and "easy" (Matthew 5 doesn't say those terms exactly but the sentiment is there), but the point is not that we're all going to Hell in fact it is far from it. It's that there is a way to Salvation and that we all need that way. The idea conveyed here is the same as breaking any other law of God that you don't really have a chance of making it to heaven without God. In fact that's a little too specific of a condition really it's you don't have a chance of making it to heaven without God even with all the good works in the world (notice this is to say it is necessary God is in the equation to make it to Heaven).
Also another often misquoted bible verse is "Money is the root of all evil" when really it says "For the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). That chapter is a good read for what makes having or wanting riches often lead to evil (for those who don't want to read it; it basically says coveting, lusting, and setting your heart upon riches, instead of God, is evil).
[1]: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat