By mistake. Thanks for notifying me.

Actually, CSS is Turing complete, ever since you could do math in it.

I program JavaScript for a living. I’ve noticed how I’ve become blind to my language’s idiosyncracies, but I still believe it isn’t super bad. Especially with all the new shiny features that were piled on ever since 2018-ish (I think).

It is definitely nowhere near as bad as C++. And I’m only 6 minutes into the video.

To nitpick for nitpicking’s sake: You can make Ctrl+Click work in JS.

I would like my parentheses to look normal, thank you.

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with the foreign policy of U.S. president Richard Nixon and his administration, who tried to make the leaders of hostile communist bloc countries think Nixon was irrational and volatile so that they would avoid provoking the U.S. in fear of an unpredictable response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

What was particularly binary about the old mascot?

Free Speech, baybeee.

And yes, spending money counts as speaking.

I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with facts!

They’re ’Muricans. You gotta give them some slack. Thinking doesn’t come naturally to them.

I don’t know who is password, or why is password, or when is password, but I do know where is password, and it’s out there!

Jesus, Buddah, Spongebob! I don’t have time to be picky!

Suppose the average person p₀ has n acquaintances. Then a naive approach would say that each of p₀’s acquaintances (call one of them p₁) also has n acquaintances, leading p₀ with n² acquaintances of the second degree.

However, in a social network, many of p₁’s acquaintances are shared between p₀ and p₁. Let’s say that r⋅n (1/n≤r≤1) of p₁’s acquaintances are actually first-order acquaintances of p₀. The lower limit for r is 1/n because naturally one of p₁’s acquaintances is p₀ themselves.

This gives us n⋅(1−p)⋅n = n²⋅(1−p) as the number of second-degree acquaintances, if my math is mathing. Increase n for more extraverted people in the network, and increase p for more closely-knit networks.

To model the headline X % know someone who knows, we solve 1 / [n²⋅(1−p)] ≥ x where x is X% expressed as a fraction. Plugging in n=100 and p = 1/10 (I pulled these numbers out of my ass) and X=20% we get 1 / [100² ⋅ (1−.1))] = 1 / [ 10^4 ⋅ 0.9 ] = 1 / 900; again, if my math is mathing.

So this headline is true if about 1 in 900 people are in a relationship with AI.

“Asterix” being some spin on the latin word for “star”, aster.

I wonder how many AI-relationships it actually takes to get 20% of a network to know one of them.

I found that I do my morning exercise way more reliably than my afterwork exercise. I try to get 30 minutes in each session.

The biggest game changer, however, was not working 8 hours a day anymore. It also helps to have a boss who’s fine with delays, so you can extend the morning session if you feel like it.

I think I would’ve no—

Oh my!

The browser can never know what information is needed for a certain use case. So it needs to be permissive in order to not break valid uses.

For instance, your list does not include the things a user clicks on the website. But that’s exactly the info I needed to log recently. A user was complaining that dropdowns would close automatically. We quickly reached the assumption that something was sending two click events. In order to prove that, I started logging the users’ clicks. If there were two in the same millisecond, then it’s definitely not a bug but a hardware (or driver or OS or whatever) issue.

At least these ancient versions won’t try to update in the middle of a sea fight.