Y2Q
I’m sorry, what does this stand for? Searching for it just results in usage without definition. I understand it’s refering to breaking conventional encryption, but it’s clearly an abbreviation of something, right? Years To Quantum? But then a countdown to it doesn’t make sense?
Okay but that’s more a Brensan Eichs anti-achievement than JavaScript being any good
Meh, at least go has a standard library that’s useful for… anything, really
Again, there are only two sensible ways out:
Satire died when my friend told me at their Very Serious Corporation with a Very Important Mission Critical Software Stack they use a thing called “Splunk” and it wasn’t a joke.
More like
Would you like to know more
I mean, sure
Here’s a 13,000-word retrospective
Ah, nah fam
for the creation of the shittiest widely adopted programming language since C++
Hey! JavaScript is objectively worse, thank you very much
domestic scenes and food imagery (sitting on my ass at the PC ingesting industrial amounts of crisps)
The search engine that dominated the industry was named for a child’s nonsense-babble word for 10^100;
And how did that work out in the long term? There were warning signs!
I think I already said this but you’re not making me use something called “Floorp” even if it’s the last piece of software in the world. Just come on.
Lot’s of words to say “but what were the users wearing?”
If you can’t sustain your business model without turning it into a predatory hellscape then you have failed and should perish. Like I’m sorry, but if a big social media service that actually serves its users is financially infeasible, then big social media services should not exist. Plain and simple.
Albrequerre
Aldquaque is what I type, crossing my fingers autocorrect will get that I mean Albequerqere
Nobody is reading papers. Universities are a clout machine.
Sokal, you should log off
we found that the Spearman correlation (higher is better) between one human reviewer and another is 0.41
This stinks to high heaven, why would you want these to be more highly correlated? There’s a reason you assign multiple reviewers, preferably with slightly different backgrounds, to a single paper. Reviews are obviously subjective! There’s going to be some consensus (especially with very bad papers; really bad papers are always almost universally lowly reviewed, because you know, they suck), but whether a particular reviewer likes what you did and how you presented it is a bit of a lottery.
Also the worth of a review is much more than a 1-10 score, it should contain detailed justification for the reviewers decision so that a meta-reviewer can then look and pinpoint relevant feedback, or even decide that a low-scoring paper is worthwhile and can be published after small changes. All of this is an abstraction, of course a slightly flawed one, but of humans talking to each other. Show your paper to 3 people you’ll get 4 different impressions. This is not a bug!
it has now been replaced by trading made-up numbers for p(doom)
Was he wearing a hot-dog costume while typing this wtf
This is like the entire fucking genAI-for-coding discourse. Every time someone talks about LLMs in lieu of proper static analysis I’m just like… Yes, the things you say are of the shape of something real and useful. No, LLMs can’t do it. Have you tried applying your efforts to something that isn’t stupid?
No idea what this is, but being at a rationalist conference cannot be good.
No idea.
Uh-oh, nonono, red flag, red flag, run away from those people!
spits coffee Excuse me, by WHOM?!