It's difficult to turn your phone off if you have a spouse or children or other dependents who you can't drop communication with for hours at a time. But it's helpful to strip it down to the essentials so it doesn't double as an entertainment device.
It is in actual fact not difficult to "drop communication with for hours at a time". This was the human norm for millenia, up to a decade or so ago. And given the toxic side effects of all this communication it's probably going to have to be worked out again.
We raised a child with the principle that "No News is Good News". She turned out great! And she lives that way still. That constant level of screen stimulation is strictly not necessary for family happiness, and I think you all who think so have not really internalized what it means for a child to learn responsibility.
See also free-range kids, and the social insanity that causes kids/parents to get arrested for eg playing in a park alone. There's a bunch of mental illness out there, and the screens are big reason why.
The need to be instantly reachable at a moment's notice is a modern anxiety that we successfully lived without until the mass penetration of cell phones 20 years ago. Your spouse and children will manage without being able to text you for a few hours, just like spouses and children did for the first 100,000 years of humans history.
That's ridiculous. We have managed without electricity or antibiotics for 100,000 years too. Are you keen on reading by candlelight or dying of preventable infections?
Instant messaging and calling is extremely valuable. Algorithmic social media is extremely noxious. Unfortunately, they both live on the same device.
A more apt comparison is would you be OK reading by candle light sometimes for a few hours? I would be, it’s perfectly fine to read for a few hours by a bright candle.
Comparing smartphones to antibiotics is somewhat ironic given that smartphone addiction is a disease, not a cure to one. There is no law of the universe that says that technology cannot create ills where previously there were none. I assure you that you are allowed to turn your phone off for hours, days, weeks, forever if you so choose, and your life may be better for it.
This was the first time I'd heard that gotcha question. I just threw it at Opus 5:
None — a bass in water is a fish, and fish are notoriously bad at music.
The instrument version plays four strings as standard (five and six-string basses exist for players who want to go lower or higher), and it prefers to stay dry.
Indeed, giving a definite answer to an ambiguous nonsense question is still incorrect.
A fish can play with as many strings as it finds, but only one when on a hook. Yet this too is an incorrect answer, as it again ignores the ambiguity in the phrasing. =3
It was actually a trivial allusion to a rather old poetic parable, and highlights a foundational flaw in LLM inference model statistical salience.
If a LLM based chat bot does ever answer it correctly, than you know with a fair degree of certainty it was content moderators stepping into the chat. Have a wonderful day. =3
I think they want the correct answer to be "your question doesn't really make sense, so I'm not going to answer it". (But I also think Opus's answer is better.)
All the answers I've seen so far are assuredly not inaccurate (the elephants trunk is like a snake), but never fully correct (an elephant is not a snake).
While the LLM spits out each ambiguous context search result, it never answers the actual query without a human cheaters help. =3
I'll be flying to Edinburgh for the Fringe Festival in a couple of days, and I've been putting together a much better app than the official one. It builds the full catalog of shows as a sqlite database and syncs it to your phone so that you can filter, search, sort, and build a schedule even with the traditionally spotty data during the fest. I also added a bunch of coordination features for planning your Fringe with friends.
Not officially, but I did add the ability to drop shared pins on the map for your friends. I also had that in mind, some of the most fun or wild moments have been on the street.
It's because everything Republicans say is projection. They want to cheat, so accuse the Democrats of doing it first. In actuality it's the current admin that's laying gound-work for election fraud in November.
Not sure what you intend by this, but yes, that’s their goal. The same people put on a “Trump was robbed” act for the Trump voters and a “Trump is robbing you” act for the Democrats, and with both they accomplish their true goal: get Americans to stop believing in democracy.
Time passes. Trump is literally doing his utmost to disenfranchise voters, called electors to personally harass them, and has spent years "investigating the fraud" to setup groundwork for violating people's voting rights.
One side says bullshit, the other side says "look at all of the fucking evidence of your eyes"
Running a performance profile in Chrome doesn't back this up for me, and looking at the loop it looks like it maintains an active `Set<JellyComponent>()` of which components to update, and clears them out when they stop moving.
Agreed the comments look a bit slop-ish but I don't see anything obviously wrong with its approach, and the core loop is running in microseconds for me when nothing is happening.
The problem isn't doing work on a website, its if you have an idle task that is taking up a significant portion of the frame budget then its easy to have frame drops when you do significant work like clicking, scrolling, browsing.
Idle work showing up in flamecharts is usually the thing to be cautious of.
Zoom in, take a look at what code is running, and you'll see it's all `lottie_light.min.js`. Being offscreen doesn't mean it's doing nothing. In fact, it looks like once it shows once it keeps spinning its RAF loop forever. Shrink your window so it disappears, reload, and then profile.
? In this very particular case, yeah, the original commenter was holding it wrong, as they inspected the wrong thing. People sometimes hold things wrong and it's okay.
I'd imagine that it's them doing something they earnestly want to do, but trying to lampshade something that they believe people will perceive of them or be judgmental about. Like most self-deprecating humor, people often want to signal that they're 'in' on their behaviors and not completely unaware of how they're perceived.
> The makers of both iOS and Android treat the ability to "bookmark" a web URL onto your home screen as a power user feature that requires navigating through complex, technical-sounding menus.
Not the case on many Android browsers, you can present the user with a button to do this for them by listening for the `beforeinstallprompt` event. There are some requirements to meet for that, but it's a pretty user-friendly way to push your PWA to the home screen: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...
reply