Yeah that’s true. The headline is asserting something that I don’t think Musk has actually said he will do. On the other hand, I’m having trouble thinking of any random idea Musk has had that he didn’t attempt to follow through on.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots,” explained Musk.

I don’t know why your comment was downvoted when I got to it. It’s a perfectly valid question. To claim in incomprehensible being wouldn’t do any given thing is just as objectively baseless as claiming that they would do that thing.

Surf Ninjas

I’ll be perfectly honest with you. I have never liked the Cybertruck. It looked ridiculous when it came out and there were various online articles that agreed with this at the time. Though I will grant you that there were also a lot of people on the Elon bandwagon who thought it was awesome. One of my best friends actually put down the deposit for one and he and I had a lively debate about it. It was a controversial thing from day 1. And looking back now, this might have been my first clue that Elon was headed off the deep end.

Right, although this idea is somewhat challenged by the story of Sigurðr who is by all accounts the best, bravest, and most famous of all Norse heroes with exploits that include slaying a dragon and receiving personal assistance from Odin on multiple occasions. Sigurðr Is stabbed by his brother-in-law and is able to actually cut the guy in half before dying himself but is then attested as going to Hel in various ways but never to Valhǫll.

It’s unclear why this is and I haven’t seen much discussion about it in scholarly discourse. There is, of course, lots of discussion about what Hel really is/means. But it may have been something implicit in the story that the ancient Norse would have inferred as being obvious. For example, maybe he lost favor with Odin by rescuing the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa from the sleep curse that Odin had placed upon her.

This sort of an idea shows up in Sonatorrek, ostensibly written by Egill Skalagrimsson. In that poem, Egill is lamenting the loss of his son who drowned in a boating accident. In that context, Egill talks about this tragedy in terms of Odin having broken off friendship with him. As a result, Egill has decided to cease sacrificing to Odin, and the consequence is that he now has a vision of Hel standing on the headland waiting for him.

I should actually read/watch that one of these days.

Nah this was a deliberately comedic scene in Gautreks Saga where members of a family keep sacrificing themselves for absurd reasons. There is some possibility that something like this could have happened in some parts of Norse society but there’s no evidence it was a requirement for entry into Valhalla (Old Norse Valhǫll).

In fact, whereas the Prose Edda (a 13th-century narrative guide to understanding skaldic poetry) does claim that those who fall in battle end up in Valhǫll, and this is supported by evidence from pre-Christian poems such as Grímnismál, Norse mythological sources are actually littered with attestations of people dying in combat but not going to Valhǫll, as well as people dying outside of combat but still ending up in Valhǫll.

One example of this is the character Sinfjǫtli from Vǫlsunga Saga. Sinfjǫtli is poisoned by his mother-in-law at a party, and his father Sigmundr carries his dead body down to the shore where a ferryman offers to take it across the water. Once the body is on the boat, it turns out the ferryman is Odin and he disappears with the body which is elsewhere confirmed to have ended up in Valhǫll in the poem Eiríksmál.

Scholar Jens Peter Schjødt theorized in Pre-Christian Religions of the North that entry into Valhǫll is predicated on a person being dedicated to Odin, which is something a person could do for themselves ritualistically (there are references to marking oneself with a spear for Odin) or could also be done to you by an enemy who has set out to kill you and intends to “give” you to Odin as a way of showing his own dedication.

she probably just made it all up

Or stole it from the weeping angels on Doctor Who

Yeah it’s interesting because JS is interpreted, not compiled. The proposal allows for type annotations in the syntax but no actual interpreter consequences. On the one hand that makes sense because otherwise you’re in the territory of runtime type-checking which would be a huge performance hit and would sort of defeat the purpose of static types anyway. But that means you still have to rely on your IDE or a linter for this to be useful.

The way I do it, patches are backward-compatible bug fixes. Minor versions are additional features that don’t change existing functionality. Major versions include breaking changes. I totally get that it seems crazy to bump to another major version just over a string format change. But overall the philosophy works well IMO.

IMO it doesn’t really matter what you said the method was for. If you change the format of a string that is returned by a method that returns a string, there’s a risk of breaking user code, even if it’s just in the context of their dev environment.

Philosophically, whether or not the behavior of your API has changed is completely disconnected from whether or not others are using it “right”. If I can depend on a function to return a certain type of value when given certain arguments, and if it doesn’t produce other side effects, then it doesn’t matter what the docs say or what the function is named, I can use it in any context where I need that type of return value and have this type of arguments available. This type of function is just mapping data to other data. If you modify the function in such a way that the return value changes after being given the same arguments, that’s a breaking change in my book.

Maybe if the alternative to building a horse barn in 1910 was building a garage that was so expensive only like 5% of the population could afford it.

AI will bring new jobs

I would not be surprised at all if “LLM Prompt Engineer” becomes an official job title in the near future.

“My wife was recycling jars so I yelled at her because she wasn’t recycling the jars.”

This obviously has nothing to do with recycling so we’re going to skip right over that weird red herring and cut to the real issue here.

Your friends laugh at you because, in your context, your wife’s recycled jars make it look like you can’t afford to throw away money for random junk at the store whenever you want. In your context, a person must display their financial success in order to be respected by their peers, and any behavior that is likely to be exhibited by people who are not as wealthy (such as cleverly reusing materials) will be viewed by your friends as an indication that you are less wealthy than you want them to believe you are. This is a horrible social context to find yourself in, and the pressure it puts on you has caused you to “lose your sh*t” at the woman you love over some jars. Just stop and let that sink in for a moment.

Now the question is, how did you end up in this headspace? Is this the general culture in your country? Is this the culture of your particular social circle? Is this a situation that exists only in your own mind? Whatever the case, it’s not a healthy way to live your life. You need to find a way to stop caring about how wealthy you look to others and focus on things that actually matter in life. Like your relationship with your wife, for example.

Is “to x” a verb now as well? I assume that’s the idea. “Today I was xing about Lemmy.” “I’m gonna x that.”

This is immensely sad because now future generations will not be able to fully appreciate the highly nuanced and layered joke in Moana where Maui says “When you use a bird to write, it’s called tweeting.”

I’m actually attempting to exit this conversation at the moment. I initially commented when I was having a bad day and would rather that I hadn’t.

That’s only true within the sphere of Marxist ideology and is not a widely-held distinction made by the rest of society. i.e., actual current law wherein:

Private property refers to the ownership of property by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. Private property may consist of real estate, buildings, objects, intellectual property (copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets). The transfer of a private property commonly takes place by the owner’s consent or through a sale or as a gift.

Outside of Marxist ideology, and in actual practice, individuals are one class of private entity, making personal property a type of private property. The average person can not be expected to fully understand the nuances of how Marxism alters these definitions, nor accept them in practicality.

Fine.

Google, define communism:

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Britannica:

communism, political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society.

dictionary.com:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state

Merriam-Webster:

a: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

b: a theory advocating elimination of private property

Oxford English Dictionary:

A theory that advocates the abolition of private ownership, all property being vested in the community…

Remember that it is unnecessary to cite sources when dealing with common knowledge.

Where did you get this definition? Look up communism in any standard dictionary or encyclopedia and you will see that it entails the removal of private property.

Edit: ugh, y’all got me arguing about communism again. I need to go outside.