Aedis

Agreed, ai slop is stealing all the attention.

Thanks for the heads up on which instances to avoid!!

Fuck. I seriously thought $atya Nadella was above this.

Edit: changed an S for an $ cause it seemed appropriate.

Funny tangent. I remember windows HRESULTS containing E_SUCCESS (error success) and something along the lines of S_FAILURE (success failure) I’m a little fuzzy on that second one though, so someone else can correct me if I have the wrong name for it.

This is sounding oddly specific. OP, please don’t kill your family member.

Edit: Actually, I’d like to add something. If you were to suffocate someone with a pillow or poison them, both of them would point to foul play, which would instantly pull in a list of possible suspects. In that list, the ones with motive would be investigated a bit more: ie, had a spat before the death. And from the on, it would be up to match evidence, now that an investigator knows what they’re looking for, it won’t take long to put 2 and 2 together.

Pretty sure that would count as monopoly as well and the sale wouldn’t be approved.

This doesn’t make that behavior any less scummy, but have you tried using any Google website on a browser that isn’t chrome?

Sure, the CDC, the NIH and the WHO are some sources. But what about a source that has information about what people are encountering?

Ok, where do I get distilled news and incidents regarding covid and other infectious diseases/viruses spreading?

I used to work in a really big project written in C and C++ (and even some asm in there) and the build was non-deterministic. However the funky part was there was a C file in all of this that had a couple dozen of commented nee lines with a line at the top saying: ‘don’t remove this or the build will fail’ That remains my favorite code comment to this day.

Wait he didn’t invent him? Man… I

I don’t have a great solution for this particular problem.

However any solution that you come up with has to be resilient enough that the nodes that execute such scenario are always available.

You don’t just want a system with high availability, you want a system that will stand the test of time. For example, it might trigger 30 or 50 years from now. You might not want to use AWS or Google or Azure or any sort of system like that. They don’t seem to keep their solutions available for that long. So you’ll need to host something yourself and make sure it’s resilient to a multitude of scenarios that might bring the “back end” down.

You’d also need to set-up some sort of test for the system to make sure it’s still running and it’ll do what you want it to. Maybe it runs every 3 months or so like a fire system drill.

Honestly the trigger can be something as simple as you hitting a button connected to your system every week with a way for it to ping and prompt you to do it you if you haven’t “reset” the counter in a timely fashion.

I would probably do something like that with a weekly cadence and a whole other week to make sure I don’t miss the reset.

You probably also want to be able to set it to different modes if you think you will be away for a while. Like a vacation mode or oh shit I’m in the hospital mode.

Additionally, I also wouldn’t be as fatalistic as sending goodbyes to everyone. I would use it more as a system to sound an alarm that I’m not okay and something has happened to me and communicate that with people who could do something about it. Like verify if I’m alive or not, or contact local authorities to post a missing persons report.

This same system of notifying could also allow closer people to me to trigger an “oh shit I’m dead mode” which would then execute whatever is in that idea of yours.

At least what I see with this experiment/article is that is overly verbose, he takes a long time to get to the point. And then when he does his methodology shows an experiment that cannot be verified. Even when something is “subjective” we can still draw conclusions from it if we set up proper non-subjective ways of evaluating the results we see (ie. Rubrics). The fact that he doesn’t really say what leads him to say in detail what is a “terrible/v. bad/bad/good result” is a massive red flag in his method.

After seeing that, I no longer read the rest of it. Any conclusions drawn from a flawed methodology are inherently fallacies or hearsay.

If in any case it is further explained in the article and that somehow refutes what I’ve postulated later on, then I would have to say that the article is poorly written.

All this to say… I agree with you, not worth the read.