Instead ask it to show you links to websites that review reliability ratings and highlight the results for Jeeps along with sources. It's annoying, but how you ask it questions is often more important than what you're asking. (This was a thing when search engines were first introduced too)
Search engines aren't accurate either, they show you 10,000+ pages for your search query. You probably weren't looking for 10,000 answers. The problem is, they can't read your mind. ChatGPT can show you results you want, just like search engines can, you just may have to tweak your query.
The last thing I searched for was about the lady who sunk the New Zealand Naval vessel. It told me she was a captain in the United States Navy. I said that was absolutely not true and it told me of course you are correct, she is from the Australian Navy, and nothing I could say could convince it otherwise.
If it can't manage one small fact on something that was covered quite a bit in the previous month, then it is worse than useless. At the very least it should say I don't know. It reminds me of that one guy we all know that does nothing but make stuff up when talking about stuff outside of their wheel house. Never backs down, never learns anything, and ultimately dumped from the relationship.
I try to use Google. If I put my search question into the Android Firefox url bar and hit enter, Google will show up with some useful answers (if it's not in the AI answer, Google is useless, because there are 5 pages of bullshit before it begins to show me actual web page search results).
But if I then click the Google search text box at the top, and start typing, it takes 20 seconds for my text to start appearing (the screen is clearly lagged by whatever Google is doing in the background), and then somehow it starts getting jumbled. Google is the only web page this happens to.
I actually like their results, they just don't want me to see their results. Weird business model.
4. curl begins running. sudo begins running in a subshell/pipe. tar begins running under the sudo pipe, extracting half of the just binary. curl fails due to network error. Due to pipefail being enabled, shell exits immediately. There is no error message. A corrupt executable is left on-disk (which will be attempted to run if your step had failure-skipping enabled)
> there will be no error output, you won't know why it failed
That's probably why the -x is there. (Well, that and if something like curl or sudo fails it tends to output something to stderr...)
> Pipefail also doesn't prevent more complex error states ... A corrupt executable is left on-disk (which will be attempted to run if your step had failure-skipping enabled)
If I'm reading right it seems like you're suggesting is that the case pipefail doesn't handle is if you explicitly ignore the exit code. That doesn't exactly seem like the most concerning catch 22, to be honest.
-x does not show output/errors when pipefail triggers. It tells you a pipe has started, and that's it. No idea what specific part of the pipe failed, or why, or what its return status was.
It's not that pipefail doesn't handle a case, it's that it doesn't tell you what happened. It does not report what failed or why. Your shell just exits with a mystery return code.
The point is that if you run -x you will definitely see plenty of output leading up to the failure. It is true that if the command that fails outputs nothing to stderr, then this may still lead to confusing outcomes, but you will not be staring at empty output, you'll be staring at the commands leading up to the failure.
This is of course no different than if you had set -e and then a command with no pipes failed silently without outputting anything to stderr.
I don't personally see why this is notable in relation to pipefail.
You're supposed to also use `set -e` if you're going to `set -o pipefail`, but of course that requires understanding that `set -e` will not apply to anything happening from inside a function called in a conditional expression -- this is a tremendous footgun.
And if you want to know which command in a pipe failed there's `PIPESTATUS`.
If they're using -e with pipefail you can't check PIPESTATUS because the shell has exited.
If you use pipefail without -e, nothing happens, except the return status of the line is different (and thus using the option is pointless unless you're checking return statuses/PIPESTATUS, which of course nobody who uses this option actually does, because they don't know how it works)
From the Bash manual:
The return status of a pipeline is the exit status of the last command, unless the pipefail option is enabled. If pipefail is enabled, the pipeline's return status is the value of the last (rightmost) command to exit with a non-zero status, or zero if all commands exit successfully. If the reserved word ! precedes a pipeline, the exit status of that pipeline is the logical negation of the exit status as described above. The shell waits for all commands in the pipeline to terminate before returning a value.
pipefail
If set, the return value of a pipeline is the value of the last (rightmost) command to exit with a non-zero status, or zero if all commands in the pipeline exit successfully. This option is disabled by default.
They don't mention how the rightmost command might be the one failing due to the lefthand one failing if it's trying to read data and fails, or from a signal handler, or if you have multiple commands in the pipe and it's the first one that failed, or multiple because (again) maybe they're feeding input to each other and two of them failed, etc.
The use of this option is an anti-pattern. You don't even need it because you can check PIPESTATUS without it.
Everybody uses pipefail because bloggers and people on HN say to use it, but without actually understanding what it's doing.
Oh, right. Ukraine is still at war. We don't hear about it on the news over here in the civilized democratized developed modern advanced West anymore, so I just figured it was over. But turns out it's still going on, since 11 years, 1 month, 1 week, and 5 days. The actual invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for 3 years, 1 month and 2 weeks.
If you want to help:
- I want to donate to the Ukrainian people in the most effective way but there are so many options. What is needed most and where? [1]
- 5 ways you can support Ukraine — even if your government doesn't want to [2]
- United Help Ukraine [3]
- Ukraine - Fact Sheet: How You Can Help [4] (Yes, even the god damn CIA cough I mean state department wants you to help)
- How You Can Help Ukraine [5]
- How you can help the people of Ukraine [6]
- Support Ukraine [7]
- How can I help Ukraine? [8]
- No child should face the war experience alone [9]
- Nova Ukraine [10]
- One in five children in Ukraine has lost a relative or friend since the escalation of war three years ago [11]
- UKRAINE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS: Help with critical aid — Give now [12]
The global economy would fracture, is what would happen. A good chunk of the top performing stocks would disappear, affecting banking, retirement, housing, just everything. Most of the communication channels people use today would disappear. The online tools even non-ad-businesses use to function would stop, so those businesses would grind to a halt. News would disappear. Products would stop getting made. (US) Politicians would freak the hell out because now they don't know how to get elected. It would be a categorical economic and social disaster.
This is perhaps old sysadmin knowledge, but different tools have very different heuristics about how they parse configuration, and you have to check every time and not assume. Among the consequences to not checking are gaping security holes.
> A company’s goal is to hire someone who will become an effective employee and produce more value than their cost.
This isn't true. They have no clue how to measure your value output. A company's goal is to make sure it has the staff to get its work done so it can sell its thing. A hiring manager's goal is to find someone to do the thing they don't have time/staff for. They will pay somewhere in the realm of whatever the market pays, depending on the "philosophy" of the hiring manager, engineering director, finance people, etc.
I recently interviewed for two jobs in different locations. Both remote, both companies in mid-tier locations in terms of salary. Same type of job, same kind & size of company, same tech, same problems to solve. One was offering 40K more than the other. I wasn't going to produce 40K more value for one than the other. Hiring and salary is just not a very smart process. They have the budget they have, and the market is what it is.
Yes! I wrote my own response, but your post made me realize the most important piece of missing advice: if you want a great offer, interview at a company with lots and lots of money
Generally speaking, yes, companies with more money can pay more. But there's plenty of companies with lots of money, yet their teams have no budget. And it depends if you came in through a recruiter or not, or are a contractor or not, or if it's a startup throwing around cash or being thrifty. Start by applying to the ones that list a high range, and then the companies with lots of money, and then the rest.
I've found that if they're a startup based out of a high-income city, they're most likely to throw money at you. Larger companies based out of high-income cities have to be more stingy and will limit based on your location, but you can push for more. A corporate hiring structure will often enforce salary caps based on title, so if you ask for too much, they may have to invent a new title for you and get it justified to their executive leadership, which is politically fraught. So if you get to the top of the salary band, don't push hard, or they will be in a corner and have to choose between you (a near-impossible candidate) and a candidate they can actually hire.
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buD2RM0xChM Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juts9IlrixQ