https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/scientists-ele...

With vi (after running "set -o vi"): kC

(k to move up back one position in history. C to "change" to the end of the line.)

This is equivalent to doing the following with "set -o emacs": pu

Regardless, use what you're comfortable with or can incrementally add to your muscle memory.

Is there a port to Apple silicon?

[1] https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/leca102.pdf

There's also "A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography" [2]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29314848

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11907569

Am I wrong that this is a double standard: being careful to protect oneself from a wayward agent with no regard for the real harm it could (and did) to another individual? And to casually dismiss this possibility with:

> At worst, maintainers can close the PR and block the account.

I question the entire premise of:

> Find bugs in science-related open source projects. Fix them. Open PRs.

Thinking of AI as "disembodied intelligence," one wonders how any agent can develop something we humans take for granted: reputation. And more than ever, reputation matters. How else can a maintainer know whether the agent that made a good fix is the same as the one proposing another? How can one be sure that all comments in a PR originated from the same agent?

> First, I’m a human typing this post. I’m not going to tell you who I am.

Why should anyone believe this? Nothing keeps an agent from writing this too.

> Secure (end-to-end encryption available)

It seems telegram bot conversations don't use the Secret Chat feature [1]. Even if they did, I'd be cautious [2].

[1] https://community.latenode.com/t/are-telegram-bot-conversati...

[2] https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2024/08/25/telegram...

> pointlessly going against expectations

If you're referring to the ribbon, I'm not sold on its superiority. The vast majority of other software still uses the familiar menu structure, which is what LO uses too.

Granted, well meaning educational programs expose students to MS Office and its paradigm, from an early age. For their sake, I eagerly await a coding assistant AI powerful enough to reskin LibreOffice to look just MS Office, ribbon and all.

[1] https://www.sliderulemuseum.com/REF/scales/MakeYourOwnSlideR...

[2] http://leewm.freeshell.org/origami/card-slide.pdf

[3] https://www.sliderulemuseum.com/SR_Scales.shtml#YingHum

[4] http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/virtual-slide-rule.ht...

This is what I was trying to get at in my other comment [1]!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46872141

My fascination stems from a belief: that slide rule usage helps users develop a certain intuition for numbers whereas the calculator doesn't. To illustrate, suppose someone tries to multiply 123 and 987 with a calculator but incorrectly punches in 123 and 187. My hypothesis is they'll look at the result but won't suspect any problem. The equivalent operation on a slide rule requires fewer physical actions and hence, is less error prone.

Do you think there's anything to this hypothesis?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28690298

"When a mold’s takeover of an artifact must be stopped, there’s gamma radiation—pelting it with electromagnetic energy from radioactive decay to kill fungi and spores. But this technique penetrates deeply and can extensively damage materials."

I will concede that mainstream code is often characterized by excessive verbosity and boilerplate. This I attribute to the immaturity of today's crop of programming languages. Techniques like language-oriented-programming [2] hint at a path I find appealing: DSLs that are tailored to the problem while promising more precision than a natural language specification could.

To speculate, I could see LLMs helping during the creation of a DSL (surfacing limitations in the DSL's design) and when adding features to a DSL, to help migrate code written in the old version to the new one.

Perhaps DSLs aren't the future. However will there be as much interest in designing new and superior programming languages now that code is seen as little more than assembly language?

[1] https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/b...

[2] https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/why-lop-why-racket.html

I've long felt that the practice of using exams to gauge knowledge or intelligence is overdue for disruption. Exams are only able to evaluate a very narrow set of abilities, so don't lose heart if your hard work doesn't translate into "marks."

No one knows what'll replace the current system and humanity may take 1 step back for every 2 steps forward. Nonetheless, I draw comfort from recognizing that so many interesting and important problems remain to be solved; problems that can keep a sharp and motivated mind engaged for a very long time.

Correct me if I'm wrong about my guess: you're referring to the JEE (Joint Entrance Exams) in India. For those unfamiliar, these are the critical exams that high-schoolers must excel in, so as to apply to the IITs, NITs and many other institutions in India. The exams just got kicked off.

While competition for the IITs is fierce, I'll submit that there are many institutions in which one can do well. Key is to retain your curiosity and aptitude for learning, and to not let the education system snuff those out.

Again, apologies if I've presumed too much.

* when a person performs a Google search, he or she is aware (at least constructively) that Google collects a significant amount of data and will provide that data to law enforcement personnel in response to an enforceable search warrant. For present purposes, what Google does with that information, including the standards it imposes upon itself before providing that information to investigators, is irrelevant. For Fourth Amendment purposes, what matters is that the user is informed that Google—a third party—will collect and store that information.

IANAL and can't understand whether now, every 3rd party storing my data is obligated to share it without a warrant.

> Pre-installed App must be Visible, Functional, and Enabled for users at first setup. Manufacturers must ensure the App is easily accessible during device setup, with no disabling or restriction of its features

While I can get behind the stated goals, the lack of any technical details is frustrating. The spartan privacy policy page[2] lists the following required permissions:

> For Android: Following permission are taken in android device along with purpose:

> - Make & Manage phone calls: To detect mobile numbers in your phone.

> - Send SMS: To complete registration by sending the SMS to DoT on 14422.

> - Call/SMS Logs: To report any Call/SMS in facilities offered by Sanchar Saathi App.

> - Photos & files: To upload the image of Call/SMS while reporting Call/SMS or report lost/stolen mobile handset.

> - Camera: While scanning the barcode of IMEI to check its genuineness.

Only the last two are mentioned as required on iOS. From a newspaper article on the topic[3]:

> Apple, for instance, resisted TRAI’s draft regulations to install a spam-reporting app, after the firm balked at the TRAI app’s permissions requirements, which included access to SMS messages and call logs.

Thinking aloud, might cryptographic schemes exist (zero knowledge proofs) which allow the OS to securely reveal limited and circumscribed attributes to the Govt without the "all or nothing", blanket permissions? To detect that an incoming call is likely from a spam number, a variant of HIBP's k-Anonymity[4] should seemingly suffice. I'm not a cryptographer but hope algorithms exist, or could be created, to cover other legitimate fraud prevent use cases.

It is a common refrain, and a concern I share, that any centralized store of PII data is inherently an attractive target; innumerable breaches should've taught everyone that. After said data loss, (a) there's no cryptographically guaranteed way for victims to know it happened, to avoid taking on the risk of searching through the dark web; (b) they can't know whether some AI has been trained to impersonate them that much better; (c) there's no way to know which database was culpable; and (d) for this reason, there's no practical recourse.

I recently explained my qualms with face id databases[5], for which similar arguments apply.

[1] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2197140&re...

[2] https://sancharsaathi.gov.in/Home/app-privacy-policy.jsp

[3] https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/pre-install-san...

[4] https://www.troyhunt.com/understanding-have-i-been-pwneds-us...

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46054724

Referring to the diagram[3] on Wikipedia, a concave hole is first cut into the stone. Parts 1 and 2 of the lewis are inserted, one at a time. Inserting part 3 between 1 and 2 results in all three locking into place. A pin and ring at the top keeps the 3 parts from separating.

[1] https://www.romanbaths.co.uk

[2] https://bathgeolsoc.org.uk/journal/articles/2021/2021_Moving...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_(lifting_appliance)#/med...