dataflow

13 ms·

31.
by dataflow 12d ago
Thanks for the feedback, but I think you're missing something. This is not about us, it's about everything and everyone else implicated in the discussion. About the fact that we're essentially being demanded to assume - witho
32.
by dataflow 12d ago
It's not clear such a thing even exists in general though. It's certainly not guaranteed by packages. What would that be for numba?
33.
by dataflow 13d ago
Okay thanks, so here's what I don't understand. When there is video evidence that someone was in their house the whole time, and given that everyone who has used a GPS knows it can easily be inaccurate by 30ft, why in the world
34.
by dataflow 13d ago
> To answer your question Looking forward! > motions by prosecutors Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)... Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
35.
by dataflow 13d ago
Thank you!
36.
by dataflow 13d ago
What is the right way to handle an optional dependency?
37.
by dataflow 13d ago
Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don't understand why you keep avoiding it. You've essenti
38.
by dataflow 13d ago
You're claiming that erroneously reported movements by ~33 ft lead to incarceration, yet the article you're linking to reports that erroneously reported movements by ~1mi+ lead to police coming to double-check what's going on
39.
by dataflow 13d ago
> This pattern, for example, can’t be lazy: try: import numpy; except ModuleNotFoundError: ... Wait, that seems bad. These kinds of modules (especially numba) are often exactly the ones that you want to delay importing. Why not provide a
40.
by dataflow 13d ago
> This As in, GPS being off by 33 feet? > leads to people getting reincarcerated I'm reading your article and it seems to be about police coming to check and realizing that the reporting of being miles away was in error, not pe
41.
by dataflow 13d ago
> So its fine that they force you to agree to something when you paid for it but its not fine when they do the thing you agreed too? Two things can be both "not fine" but one can still be worse than the other.
42.
by dataflow 13d ago
What was their rationale for doing nothing?
43.
by dataflow 13d ago
I don't really understand the choices. Is a laptop that is normally docked on a desk considered a desktop for the purposes of your question?
44.
Trump administration aims to strip schools' tax exemption if they consider race(washingtonpost.com)
3 points by dataflow 13d ago|0 comments
45.
by dataflow 13d ago
That sounds awful. This kind of case doesn't seem like something you should let a single person decide on their own, judge or not. Is she not entitled to a jury trial because it's a misdemeanor or something? If she can find the fu
46.
by dataflow 14d ago
> after 1986
47.
by dataflow 14d ago
Ideally an offline copy that can be made read-only with a physical switch. So that when you're trying to restore, you know nothing is going to mess with it. Not sure what the right solution is for something like that.
48.
by dataflow 14d ago
No, all you're showing in that example is that a pointer is passed as part of the ABI. You're not showing that RVO relates to that in any way whatsoever. If you write the same function in a manner that (N)RVO can't kick in, d
49.
by dataflow 14d ago
The point of (N)RVO is to directly construct the return value in-place at the calling frame. Which requires knowing what object will land there. In RVO there is no problem because you know what object is the one you need to put there. In NR
50.
by dataflow 14d ago
> N/RVO works by (at the machine language level, of course) rewriting the function signature to return void and take an extra pointer parameter This sounds wrong, are you sure? Would you mind demonstrating with an example on godbolt
51.
by dataflow 15d ago
Just wanted to amend this to note that what I wrote also applies to the war against ownership, etc... I'm making no attempt to be exhaustive here, just trying to get a larger point across.
52.
by dataflow 15d ago
I'm pretty sure they could support this if they wanted to, which implies they don't want such transactions. And they obviously aren't going to make it easy to get around something they don't want. So we agree on that.
53.
by dataflow 15d ago
> If you can't use their systems for a donation with a sales tax rate of 0%, then per the policy that means you can route users to alternative payment methods for those transactions. So by your reasoning, if donations to OSC are not
54.
by dataflow 15d ago
So I'm only a layperson and don't know what is strictly legally required , but my understanding (based on reading/third-hand information) is that payment processors do in practice end up with more work to do for this, whatev
55.
by dataflow 15d ago
> So you DO know what's going on! In that case I have no idea why you're arguing in favor of having a gate placed in front of our [personal, owned] phones to regulate what we do with our own devices. Then you're not unders
56.
by dataflow 15d ago
This is the stock OS you paid for. It's beholden to Google and subject to their updates as it always was. You can either flash a different OS entirely, or even break their ability to update it before the change rolls out, if that&#x2
57.
by dataflow 15d ago
I agree wholeheartedly, but you can already unlock and root your phone and install whatever you want. This is not that battle. Mind you, I don't like either of these, but they're very different in nature.
58.
by dataflow 15d ago
> Personally for me, a fake convoluted opt-out is the same as no opt out so we're already there. Convoluted, yes, but fake ? Aren't you just repeating the same lie? That means it looks like it bypasses the verification but doe
59.
by dataflow 15d ago
The mere fact that they have to avoid dealing with sales tax here (unlike their typical transactions) is clearly extra complication for them. So you can understand that sales tax being 0% (thus "not taxable") can make things harde
60.
by dataflow 15d ago
> What would be "really bad" for you? "Block[ing] every Android app whose developer hasn't registered with Google, signed their contract, paid up, and handed over government ID. Every app and every device, worldwide,

More ›