You can't sandbox the code that is supposed to talk to your DB from your DB.
And even on client side, the sandboxing helps isolate any malicious webpage, even ones that are accidentally malicious, from other webpages and from the rest of your machine.
If malicious actors could get gmail.com to run their malicious JS on the client side through this type of supply-chain attack, they could very very easily steal all of your emails. The browser sandbox doesn't offer any protection from 1st party javascript.
I was once working with an E-Learning company and proposed that our multiple-choice tests should give -1 for the wrong choice, 1 for correct choice and 0 for no answer.
Instead they wanted to only give poinhts for correct answers, not penalize wrong answers. That obviously leads to and promotes guessing. Why did they want it that way? I think they wanted to show that with our product people actually learned the stuff and thus was worth paying for. You could pass the test by making "good guesses".
Something similar seems to be going on here. AI companies want their LMS to get good scores even when they don't know the answer, in which case they guess. That is bad because they don't tell us when they're guessing.
I think it should be OK for LMS to guess but only if it clearly tells the user it's answer is just a guess, when it is.
Because chess is more unrelated to the job? It is easy to see that LeetCode problems are closer to a programmers job than what chess is.
But yeah, people used to ask that level of unrelated questions to programmers, and they were happy with the results. "Why are manhole covers round" etc. LeetCode style questions do produce better results than those, so that is why they use them.
Don't overlook the "Forces". While "Problem" explains WHY you might need the specific pattern in question, the "forces" explain why some trivial solutions are not very good solutions, because you have to take into account the constraints, the assumptions about the context, why the problem is actually a problem.
MVC is a great, even proverbial pattern, but I don't recall having seen it presentewd in the "Patterns Format" anywhere.
Such a presentation would make it easier to understand no doubt.
I have those books. I can confirm that your citations are correct. That said, Fowler's presentation is brief and doesn't really pass as "pattern form" in my view. POSA has its own slightly different pattern form Context/Problem/Solution/Structure/Dynamics/Implementation/Variants/Known Uses/Consequences:benefits/Consequences:liabilities/Credits(Trygve Reenskaug)
For a startup it is important to not be pulled to too many directions. If you find one great customer you can co-develop the product with them, whereas having very many customers might take up all your time listening to them.
I think it is simply because the writer needs to take a pause afteer writing some amount. And the reader also prefers to take pause. Having chapters aligns the interests of both readers and the writer.
Nah, as a writer who talks to other writers with wildly different processes, I don't think that's how it works for anyone. Time spent writing is almost unrelated to visible time markers in the text. It's not a big deal to stop writing in the middle of a scene or stop one and start another in the same session (assuming we're writing linearly at all). Scene and chapter boundaries are something we specifically think about in their own right to optimize the reading experience.
True. Personally when I write I do like to always start the next chapter or whatever is the "unit" or "task". But then stop. The units for the writer are probnably not the same as for the reader. But they serve the same purpose, taking a break, letting you think a bit about what was done and what will be done next.
There is a rhythm. We live one day at a time. We tell one story at a time. We post one HN post at a time. :-)
Here's a trick I've used: After I breathe in I don't breathe out intentionally, I just observe and enjoy the breath going out on its own. It is an enjoyable sensation not unlike what you experience diving under water and coming back to surface to breathe again. Same after I breathe out, I feel the natural desire to breathe in again and I just let it happen.
Not really pausing between changing the direciton of breath, but just observing how it feels good to breath in and out naturally, automatically. This means I am actually being aware that I enjoy breathing. And when you enjoy something, you don't need to think too much. Just enjoy it. It is also a great realization that I can enjoy life as long as I'm not in pain and I can breathe, and have enough time that I can focus on and experience that.
Of note is that meditation isn't about not thinking per se, more about allowing your thoughts to flow freely.
Which is a weird thing that happened to me or that I became aware of a few years ago, late at night or when I lie down for a nap I can get into that state, it's like dreaming while being awake. Of course, as soon as I'm aware of that I snap out of it, it's like "hey I want to keep following that train of thought" but it doesn't work when it's active.
Of course, if I don't snap out of it like that I will invariably fall asleep, lol.
Between the states of wake and asleep I sometimes (more than once) can see my self floating above a forest, as if I was a drone flying above trees. I realize what is happening, that I'm not asleep and can keep on flying. I can snap out of it, or maybe I fall asleep.
Yup. It’s a lovely state of mind. Feels like the executive function has switched off so the usual judgment/self-censoring can’t interfere. It’s like a pure state of creativity/openness.
I read somewhere that only people who want to be hypnotized can be hypnotized. People "believe" not because of facts and evidence, but because they want to believe. We wouldn't say "I believe ..." if we had facts to back up our belief, we would say "I know that .... Same applies to religious cults and extreme politics. Peole believe what they want to believe. No use trying to argue with them.
So, I think you raise a good general question about the nature and causes of transcendental experiences. You can have them if you want them. And who wouldn't?
I've found I benefit most from AI when I ask it questions about technical topics, like programming or using a device like a synthesizer or DAW software. There's pshychological effect I get especially when I get an answer that says "that feature is not supported". I get the feeling that it's not my fault that something feels very difficult, I know WHY it is difficult when somebody tells me there is no easy way to do what you want, so I don't waste any more time trying to find the solution. I must look elsewhere then.
So I wonder, trying to learn AI and how to use it, shouldn't the AI itself be the best guide for understanding AI? Maybe not so much with the latest research or latest products, because AI is not yet trained on those, but sooner or later AI should feel as easy a subject as say JavaScript programming.
I'm not quite sure what that would mean, but if it solves the problem for browsers, why not for server?
reply