I don’t think either is actually true. I know many programmers who can fix a problem once the bug is identified but wouldn’t be able to find it themselves nor would they be able to determine if a bug is exploitable without significant coaching.

Exploit finding is a specific skill set that requires thinking about multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously (or intentionally methodically). I have found that most programmers simply don’t do this.

I think the definition of “good” comes into play here, because the vast majority of programmers need to dependably discover solutions to problems that other people find. Ingenuity and multilevel abstract thinking are not critically important and many of these engineers who reliably fix problems without hand holding are good engineers in my book.

I suppose that it could be argued that finding the source of a bug from a bug report requires detective skills, but even this is mostly guided inspection with modern tooling.

For lithium batteries (phone batteries) it’s actually more important than draining to 0. Many studies indicate that the average phone battery should last several thousand cycles while only losing 5-10% of total capacity provided it is never charged above 80%. Minimum % (even down to 0%) and charge rate below 70% is also unrestricted.

The tl;dr is that everytime you charge to 100% is the same as 50-100 charges to 80%. Draining a lithium chemistry battery to 0 isn’t an issue as long as you don’t leave it in a discharged state (immediately charging).

I… Mean… You obviously don’t, but whatever.

Sorry. I apologize.

It’s frustrating trying to explain the same thing over and over again…

The tokens are how drm works. The process of DRM is token validation and enforcement of intellectual property rights granted by tokens.

I don’t know how else to explain it. It feels like I am back at my original post. I don’t know if you understand any better or if you still have misconceptions about what NFTs are or what DRM is or if you still think there is some magic in NFTs.

Again, all of this already existed and will continue to exist with or without blockchain. There is very little novel in the implementation details of the tokens. The people who got the idea for "nft"s didn’t come up with a new idea. This isn’t some new math. The only portion of NFTs that is new is the cooperative signing… Which again, isn’t a new concept either.

Right now, everything you described… Literally all of it… Ubisoft implements for their launcher and enforce with their drm solution.

Nfts, digital tokens, already exist. Their use, in the protection of copyright, is called drm. “Nfts” bring nothing new to the table of digital rights or copyright… And a whole host of stupidity.

Without knowing the exact model it’s difficult to know for certain but you can buy off brand refill kits with chips. The printer may intentionally degrade quality with the aftermarket chips (and may never reset itself even if you return to official toner)… HP is just a terrible company.

Maybe it depends on how or when you signed up. I never gave a cell number and I can use 3.5.

It depends on what you are trying to do… There are many tunnel / reverse proxy routing services like https://www.cloudflare.com/products/tunnel/

Here’s a list https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling

You can also get a super cheap vps, do some ssh reverse tunnel magic and go along with your day.

No. Not in the slightest. If you think that we should vote to defederate from csam before we defederate from csam you have something wrong with you. If you say “that’s not what I mean.” No. That’s exactly what a democracy is.

Should we have a responsive, responsible team that makes decisions for us? Yes. Is it a democracy? Fuck no. Is it nice that they listen to their users wants and needs? Yes. Should their be transparency in the process? Yes.

If I am being treated like a child then is it not expected behavior to see my response as childish?

And all you would have to do is look it up? This isn’t a good argument. What is being gained here by posting about it? This isn’t a secret. They aren’t pulling a fast one over on you.

You know what would be great? If there was a way we could… I dunno… collate all of these kinds of posts into a kind of… group… where like minded people could… get together and talk about it. I wonder if someone like this could exist. What do you think?

Awesome response!

It really doesn’t… it doesn’t affect me at all.

Can we stop stickying these posts to the instance? We are super appreciative of the hard work you guys do, and you are super transparent. I personally trust you guys to make good decisions and this could be a support community sticky instead of an instance sticky.

And yet, somehow there is still a bug in the datetime implementation.

I’ll answer in a couple of different ways.

1. If I am writing library code my why is you have an end use and I don’t care why you use it and you don’t care why I wrote it. You only care about what my code does so you can achieve your why.

2. If we are working on the same code we have different whys but the same what. Then your comment as to why isn’t the same as mine which makes the comment incorrect.

3. We are looking at a piece of code and you want to know how it works, because the stated what is wrong (bugs). This might be the “why” you are looking for, but I call this a “how”. This is the case where self documenting code is most important. Code should tell a second programmer how the code achieves the what without needing an additional set of verbose comments. The great thing about code is that it is literally the instructions on the how. The problem is conveying the how to other programmers.

There are three kinds of how: self evident, complex how’s requiring multiple levels of abstraction and lots of code and complex short how’s that are not apparent.

The third is where most people get into trouble. Almost all of these cases of complexity can be solved with only a single layer of abstraction and achieve easily readable self documenting code. The problem for many cases is that they start as a one off and people are lousy at putting in the work on a one-off solution. Sometimes the added work of abstraction, and building a performant abstraction, makes a small task a large one. In these cases comments can make sense.

Sometimes these short, complex how’s require specialists. Database queries, performant perl/functional queries, algorithmic operations, complex compile time optimized templates (or other language specific optimizations) and the like are some of the most common examples of these. This category of problem benefits most from a well defined interface with examples for use (which might be comments). The “how” of these are not as valuable for the average developer and often require specialist knowledge regardless of comments for understanding how they work. In these cases what they do is far more valuable than how or why.

See, I think length limits and readability are sometimes at odds. To say that you 100% believe in length limits means that you would prefer the length limit over a readable line of code in those situations.

I agree that shorter lines are often more readable. I also think artificial limits on length are crazy. Guidelines, fine. Verbosity for the sake of verbosity isn’t valuable… But to say never is a huge stretch. There are always those weird edge cases that everyone hates.

This is a pretty ridiculous position to take but if you believe it then I’m glad you write the comments you do.

There is an argument that commenting on the lack of expected code is valuable for this reason, but it certainly isn’t true in all situations.

I think it’s more correct to say that we don’t know how to travel in the other direction on the time axis. It could also simply be our perception of time only works unidirectionally.

From a mathematics point of view, nothing is preventing going backwards in time… We simply don’t perceive time that way.

Practically, this does nothing for us.