I use GPT-4, it's like pairing up with a junior developer who read all the documentation.
I follow the same steps as always to design the code, but when it's time to implement something, I ask the bot to do it, then I review it and move on to the next function.
I've built a few systems for low-cost airlines in South America. There shouldn't be a lot of difference with bigger airlines around the world.
The boarding software usually checks that:
- The boarding pass is valid (checksum)
- The flight state is correct e.g. 'boarding' and 'open'
- The passenger did check-in
- The passenger haven't boarded yet
More advanced implementations can match the gate with the flight, this is optional.
The beep usually is a response from the reader indicating that the code has been read successfully.
The result of the operation is displayed in a screen and the attendant has to read it and act accordingly.
For most of us, committing suicide is unimaginable.
Sometimes people find themselves in situations where the unimaginable is a better option than whatever it is they're facing. The act is equally horrific, but preferable to the alternative.
> At least 200 people are believed to have fallen or jumped to their deaths [from the World Trade Centre on 9/11] while other estimates say the number is half of that or fewer.
[...]
> The New York City medical examiner's office said it does not classify the people who fell to their deaths on September 11 as "jumpers": "A 'jumper' is somebody who goes to the office in the morning knowing that they will commit suicide. These people were forced out by the smoke and flames or blown out."
I don't think the WTC jumpers are quite the same. They were faced with certain death or near certain death, and they naturally chose the latter. Falls from a great height are survivable, very very rarely. I see this an example of the human drive to survive: when faced with death, we'll try anything that offers any sort of hope, even just a slight delay.
> when faced with death, we'll try anything that offers any sort of hope, even just a slight delay
Many people opt-out of aggressive cancer treatments that may add months on to their lives, and increasingly euthanasia is a (legal) alternative to letting medical conditions run their course.
There are situations where ending things early can be one of the valid choices made available to you.
That's true, but I think there's a big difference between a long-standing condition and a brief crisis. I love the quote you linked to and I think it does a great job at giving people some perspective on what suicidal people are thinking. I just think the analogy falls apart once you start digging into it. Jumping out of the towers was a last-ditch attempt to survive, not just a better way to die.
> Jumping out of the towers was a last-ditch attempt to survive
I'm not sure how it's possible to come to that conclusion.
(And to be clear: I wasn't originally trying to suggest that everyone that fell from the WTC made a decision to jump. I think it's probably fair to say almost everyone that fell was simply trying to get away from the smoke by leaning out of windows, etc. )
I'm not sure how it's not. Certain death in the smoke and fire versus a slim chance of survival if you jump, seems like the rational choice in horrible circumstances.
I don't think it was about survival chance. Death by heat sufficient to kill you would surely be extremely painful. Death by fall impact from high enough would at least be quick.
As either option was clearly fatal, jumping wasn't a deliberate choice for death and hence wasn't suicide.
I see overlap between these approaches, but not sure I'd go so far as considering one or another "better" for all use cases. Tails specifically targets "less sophisticated" users, and is pretty self-explanatory. And true to its name (and unlike Qubes and Whonix), Tails goes to pains to be "amnesiac" by design, although you can of course subvert that by enabling persistence. It's hard to hold a candle to Tails when using computers at local libraries or internet cafes, or when you really need to maintain a minimimal data footprint when traveling internationally.
The whonix setup has tor and your browser on different VMs, whereas tails relies on linux' firewall to funnel traffic through tor. Tails is "just" one kernel exploit away from deanonymization.
More importantly, qubes is far superior to anything else for day to day security. You can do your banking in one isolated domain, your "let's download a thousand unverified dependencies from strangers" development on another, your internet browsing in a third, you can create domains with no internet connectivity to store your private files, and it's a lot easier than trying to juggle VMs yourself. A side benefit for the people who never close tabs is that qubes never becomes unresponsive due to running low on memory.
Did you verify that the stuff you refereed to as only being known if you follows Italian news is not on the net? Don't those Italian news outlets have websites?
This guy seems to be pretty good at googling around for stuff.
In Bolivia, starting this year, all the electronically printed invoices have to include an QR code that contains the necessary information for tax filling.
Having one of the worst tax system in the world I'm surprised that somebody had the idea to implement this mechanism.
Sneaking around reading people's online history, then using that information to draw unwarranted conclusions about their character, is rude. Stop it.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that the person you're responding to posted the same link in two different threads because... there's multiple threads on HN which are discussing the same issue. This happens all the time.
Wow is that some serious twilight zone BS. It takes exactly two clicks to find the information MisterWebz found. Information that was put there to be found. You don't even leave HN.
Is it also "sneaking around" if I click on your username and discover your real name, twitter username, blog URL, and email address, all that you voluntarily put there for the public?
If I open a phonebook and find someone's number, was I "sneaking around"?
I follow the same steps as always to design the code, but when it's time to implement something, I ask the bot to do it, then I review it and move on to the next function.