I usually give myself 30-60 mins to solve. If I can't do it by then I will look up solutions and -study- them (also break it piece by piece and see if I can generalize it for future problems). I would look at solutions even after solving it by myself.
I find that to be the best balance between challenge and learning something new. You will mentally burn yourself out if you keep bashing against the wall for hours or more, not quite a healthy thing to do :)
Meanwhile, people who actually try to compete on this stuff have already developed rich library of specialized algorithms to leap ahead of average programmer. Well, I guess nowadays a lot of it is LLM assisted too.
Yeah, I definitely think there's benefit in seeing others solutions, and in this situation I want to learn from it, if I can ever reason out why it's working.
Certainly using nushell means anything beyond the true basics seems to be beyond most LLMs.
When I first started programming it used to get me down if I couldn't solve these things. But as I've got old and a little more experienced, I can now admit things like AoC are just not my thing. It's like crossword puzzles or low level algos. I find them extremely hard to reason about.
Companies should quickly realize that ChatGPT can go both ways - it can turn a "script-kiddie" into fully fledged hacker if vulnerabilities continue to be this sloppy. I am fairly certain that low-skill hacker sweatshops already heavily rely on LLMs to quickly exploit trivial vulnerabilities like these.
Like it or not but I feel like account logins, PII and payment stuff will have to be handled by central big orgs. Ideally, I would like that to be a competent open-source government service. For now it is big companies like Google that can shove its SSO around in accessible manner to other sites.
Looks like this runtime is written in Rust. Really does seem like Rust is rapidly swallowing all kinds of common tools and libraries. In this case a single compiled binary for multiple architectures is quite convenient for something like yt-dlp.
Steroids. You will be growing muscle while sitting on a couch, even better than someone that naturally trains. However, you very likely will develop asymetries or other weird complications because you didnt properly work out.
My point is that, even though we might find even more ways to improve/modify our bodies, they will come with slew of risks that are just not worth it if you can achieve it naturally.
On another note, I feel like there is severe muscle inflation in media which would distort how fit a person should be. You really do not need to kill yourself in the gym or hop on a some reddit-approved juices to get very fit. Just gotta experiment and find a comfortable full body workout that you can do consistently, like you brush your teeth every day.
Actually, that's not how steroids work. It's a common misconception that one can take "roids" and just sit on the sofa while munching on potato chips and get shredded and pack on muscle but in reality what the steroids do are to move ones natural limitations further away thus enabling larger muscle mass than naturally. But this still requires one to put in the work, i.e. the stimulus to trigger the muscle growth and to rest and eat properly.
They do work that way. Lots of studies show gains in muscle mass even with no excercise when people are on steroids. Consider average men who never excercise vs average women who never excercise. The men will have more muscle. That's what testosterone does, among other things.
That's part of why steroids were and sometimes still are used medically for people with cancer and other wasting diseases. It makes them eat more (they're usually strongly appetite inducing) but they also just help develop muscles even if sedentary.
(Of course it would be far more effective to also engage in high intensity resistance training.)
One completely random study result[0] supporting that couch + testosterone leads to bigger muscles. Maybe it is some puritanical thing, but not sure why this myth persists. Exercise + juice results in even bigger gains, but it is possible to increase muscle mass without hard work.
...The men in the testosterone groups had significant increases in the cross-sectional areas of the triceps and the quadriceps (Table 4); the group assigned to testosterone without exercise had a significantly greater increase in the cross-sectional area of the quadriceps than the placebo-alone group
Steroids are usually given to reduce inflammation and as immunosuppressants to stop the body from fighting back against whatever treatment is being given. The main method of weight gain with prednisone (the most common steroid) is water retention. Anabolic steroids are not commonly prescribed to cancer patients.
Cortico steroids usually result in muscle mass loss.
That's not how steroids work. Muscles need stimulus to grow even with steroids. What steroids do is make your body recover faster so you can train more often and build muscle right away.
Exact stats are hard to come by but depletion of vehicles has certainly been noticed in battlefield footage: they started with proper military grade vehicles, went down to WW2 era vehicles, then down to light vehicles, civilian vehicles, motorcycles, scooters... donkeys.
That doesn't mean they are completely out of modern stuff but you just dont see it being used on frontlines anymore.
What is happening, however, is the rapidly developing drone warfare which is becoming terrifyingly efficient to conduct warfare in. I dont think we are far off from fully autonomous kamikaze drones at mass produced scale, at dirt cheap price.
It pretty much makes a lot of previously developed modern missiles or even defense systems (e.g. patriots) useless due to how cheaply and effectively you can launch kamikaze drone swarms.
It will require a modern Geneva convention or the extinction of humans eventually. Drones are the modern equivalent of chemical and biological weapons.
> Drones are the modern equivalent of chemical and biological weapons
We didn’t ban these because they’re an extinction threat. (They’re not.)
We banned them because they’re only useful asymmetrically. Drones, on the other hand, are useful for everyone. So no bans. (I’m putting aside that we’re moving away from global arms control agreements.)
>We didn’t ban these because they’re an extinction threat. (They’re not.)
Sorry what? Biological weapons are absolutely an extinction level threat. If you haven't watched the spread of the flu and covid every year and quickly realized that in the modern day a properly engineered bio-weapon would functionally end the human race, I'd like some of what you're having.
>We banned them because they’re only useful asymmetrically.
That's simply not true and shows either a lack of understanding of history, or an intentional perversion. The Taliban don't care about the Geneva convention, but is functionally incapable of utilizing chemical warfare to any significant degree despite the fact I'm sure they'd have loved to use it to wipe out the US military in Afghanistan for the last 20 years and the Russians before that. On the flip side, their deployment in WWI wasn't asymmetrical, both sides used the weapons and both sides agreed after watching the end result that nobody should be using them.
*If anything, drones are far, far more useful for asymmetric warfare. They can be easily acquired for cheap, there are no export controls, there's very little expertise required, and you can attach something as basic as a pipe bomb to them to do significant damage.
The contemporaneous sources are vast and point in one direction: these weapons aren’t useful for the winners of wars, are annoying to deal with, have a bit of a notion of novel horror to them, and so were bannable. Nobody was talking about extinction.
> their deployment in WWI wasn't asymmetrical, both sides used the weapons
Not what asymmetric warfare means.
> drones are far, far more useful for asymmetric warfare
Sure. But they’re also useful for large military states. So not going to be banned.
Like, someone is free to cosplay a ban. But the incentives to circumvent it are too great. There are no incentives to make illegal chemical or biological weapons because they’re just not that great as weapons.
(I’ll note that your reading of history, while wrong, is far from unique. It’s unfortunately counterproductive as it implies a moral crusade against a category of weapon can get it banned. It might be able to. But chemicals and biological arms aren’t a precedent for it.)
These kind of policies and that amortization tax law for software development will probably encourage quite some exodus of talent. Would it be to Europe or South East Asia, though?
A large part of our talent acquisition would stay home, as the Asian countries, especially China, are expanding their investments. American students would go to work in European universities due to the lesser language barrier. When the US was a developing country a large number of children of wealthy families were sent to study in Europe.
I don't think the idea of looking outside the US for knowledge would be natural to many people of this generation. I wonder what the effects on our culture will be - it would certainly reduce the pride.
I think at least some of them will come up to Canada. No language barrier, and close enough geographically and culturally to keep most of your connections. We pay less but live longer on average.
Seeing all this unfold is doing amazing things for our national pride, ironically.
The US still has the best researchers today too, we're talking about the longer-term effects of anti-science policy in the face of continued development around the world.
A boring mansion, with a boring lawn, in a boring, gated community? -- and all that while the other neighbourhoods are on fire.
But at least you can buy $700 sneakers and leave the big garage in style, to work your ass off with a job pretending to "better the world" -- maybe have one or two weeks to fill your social media account with pictures already taken by the millions (you might as well use generative AI).
That’s certainly one way to live life, although certainly not the only way. Many people use tech as a path to financial independence. There’s a running joke/groan that the FIRE sub is filled with software engineers making 6 figures.
For engineers, maybe. But with immigration restrictions, employers can no longer create a workplace where "work with the best in the world" is an attraction.
Because, and I say this as one who already decided against the USA in response to Trump's first election, I rather doubt that the new policy of getting in the news for systematically deporting migrants for even minor things — not even offences, theoretically protected things like blogging — is going to put a rather big dent on people willing to go. I mean, right now, I don't even want to visit the US on a holiday, much less live there.
And that's without all the people saying "sure, you get paid 3x on paper, but all of it goes on rent and health insurance that doesn't actually pay out when you need it" that also makes it seem a lot less interesting.
I've been wondering what is the benefit of putting up your own web server or scripts to serve your static content when you could put it in a Github repo or serve from something like S3?
The nice thing about latter is that the bandwidth, DDoS or other load-related issues aren't that much of a problem. Server maintenance also isn't a problem as you don't have any.
One key benefit of putting up an own server is that there are no limitations on file types and much fewer restrictions on what kind of content you can create.
For serving static files, I can (and have) lived a long time with one of the "free hoster" sites -- from times before Github Pages or S3 were a thing I guess, today I'd go for Github Pages.
A key advantage of moving to an own server was that I can enable the odd feature or technology any time. E.g. most recently I wanted to have some "private" subspace with fancy authentication and it was easy to add with proper access to the server config.
> I've been wondering what is the benefit of putting up your own web server or scripts to serve your static content when you could put it in a Github repo or serve from something like S3?
I think you're overestimating the work required to put together a web server. For example, you mention dumping files in a S3 bucket, but that doesn't require much more work than whipping out a nginx instance and dropping said files in a folder.
Also, some people already run their own servers or deploy their services in some cloud procider. The work required to put together a blog is minimal.
But also yeah, the opinion of authorities I see quoted in Swedish and Finnish press has been very clear they don’t think this is accidental.
I’ve lived by the Baltic for much of my life, had many many years of nothing like this, then suddenly every week Russian ships “accidentally” cuts critical cables.
No reason to spread rumours, that’s how seeds of doubt are sown; the evidence is plain as day without manufactured stories
I find that to be the best balance between challenge and learning something new. You will mentally burn yourself out if you keep bashing against the wall for hours or more, not quite a healthy thing to do :)
Meanwhile, people who actually try to compete on this stuff have already developed rich library of specialized algorithms to leap ahead of average programmer. Well, I guess nowadays a lot of it is LLM assisted too.