I wouldn’t be so quick to write it off.
It’s a proof of concept showing the weaknesses in Microsoft’s vetting process for extensions published on the store. They then used the process to get pseudo-malicious code inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs) some of which are high profile.
Sounds like you already worked it out.
One of which is that Stephen Hawking threw a lousy party.
This thinking just leads to science being turned into a religion. Knowledge being passed down from blessed people who perform obscure practises, and the masses being expected to accept it without question. Science should be open and understood by all. Then it has the weight it deserves and then you can have proper public discourse about issues.
A young earth creationist’s hypothesis does not agree with existing evidence and so your example does not refute my argument.
I think the problem the masses have is that now that sky-daddy is largely ignored it hasn’t stopped the desire to be told what to think. Thinking for ones self is hard. It takes time and effort. People don’t want to do it. People want somebody else to do it.
Science has truth passed down from upon high by priests who carry out mystic rituals to give them sacred knowledge.
Bollocks! We’ve built another ruddy religion.
If you disagree without evidence, you’re not wrong. You can propose an alternative theory that is consistent with existing evidence and it’s just as valid as anybody else’s. The mission is then to find evidence which disproves one theory or the other.
Conjecture is fundamental.
Base 6. One hand and a arm. Let’s me get all the way to 41.
Egads! My eyes.
I’d rather it was just written in assembly. It’s the do { opening a block under the case 0, but then proceeding to have further case statements inside that block. You now have case statements in two different scopes that are part of the same switch.
In most CPU instruction sets, the only conditional instruction is branch (aka goto).
I would say we disagree with the premise of the question. Mathematics is not a singular noun. It’s a plural. It’s the field of all mathematics. Therefore you preserve the “s” because you abbreviate the singular and re-pluralise it.
So somebody in the UK might (not commonally) say “it’s a math(matic) concept”, but more likely to say “it’s a concept from math(ematic)s” or “it’s a mathematical concept”.
Not high. It tends to result in one of a few things.
They take the fix as offered. Probably it’s a smaller quiet project where the number of PRs is small. That, or very well run.
It remains forever open and gets lost in the masses of other out of date PRs. Maybe a bot comes along and closes it as stale. Biggest group, and these ones just tell me that I’ve got very little chance of getting the maintainer’s attention. I can see that 100s of others have experienced the same fate.
Somebody else finds it useful and adopts it, fighting for it to go in. Sometimes that someone is the maintainer. As you say, it can be inspiration for a rewrite of my contribution. That’s fine by me. Whatever works.
The maintainer makes a bunch of rework demands leading to rejection, or it gets rejected straight off. “My way or the highway” is always going to be highway. I offered a small piece of help, and if it’s not wanted I’ll happily go away.
Maybe 20% get in, but it depends on so many things.
Honestly, I run and gun. I make the change I want, and submit a merge request. I then move on. It’s then up to the maintainer to accept or reject it.
I’m not going to debate it. I’m not going to rework it over the course of months to make it perfect in the maintainer’s eyes. I don’t care enough about it. I’ve solved my problem. I’m just sharing it for others.
The things I submit are normally big fixes with the smallest possible code change, not refactorings to solve an underlying problem.
Second diagram, yes absolutely.
Short lived (1-2 day) branches, and a strong CI systems to catch regressions.
Be warned, the strength in the CI lies in its capacity to detect when some functionality that previously worked doesn’t work anymore. So, the flow must be green always, and it must evolve as the features evolve. Without good CI you’re destined for failure.
I don’t think anything works in that situation.
You sure? The smell off some of the corpses will have been terrible.
I’m not saying they’re all dead, but an intern at the time of launch would now be 70. Anybody who actually designed anything is… Well… The odds of them still being around are low.
Comparing base model to base model I think Cascade is quite a lot better than SDXL, but …and it’s an enormous but… It seems to have been shunned by the community.
Maybe nobody with resources to do training is interested in a model with commercial restrictions, or the multi-model flow was just too different for people. Not sure, but the output of the base model can be really nice. Not always, but I find the biggest errors are people taking on a painterly/waxy appearance rather than the arm turning into a leg body horror you can get with SDXL. I think the “compressed” Stage C works to keep the composition together across the whole image more.
…but it feels like so much more communication today is just references to other things.
Shaka, when the walls fell.
…and punctuation.