> If you have been granted a free access to Copilot as a verified student, teacher, or maintainer of a popular open source project, you won’t be able to cancel your plan.
My main high-level advice would be to have an extensive set of behavioral tests (lots of scripts with assertions on the output). This helps ensure correctness when you flip on your JIT compilation.
You'll eventually run into hard to diagnose bugs - so be able to conditionally JIT parts of your code (per-function control - or even better, per-basic block) to help narrow down problem areas.
The other debugging trick I did was spit out the full state of the runtime after every instruction, and ensure that the same state is seen after every instruction even w/ JIT enabled.
this just looks like someone hearing about tons of hyped things from people across the internet (which almost by definition, is full of false signals and grifters), imagining they are coming from the same person, then arguing with how wrong that person always is. how is that interesting?
One area of focus missing here is game streaming / remote play (Steam Link, Moonlight, etc. over a local network).
I've come to accept input lag, but mostly play games where it doesn't matter (simple platformers, turn-based games, etc). I know steam link from my home desktop to my ~5 year smart TV is adding latency to my inputs – though I can't tell if it's from my router, desktop, or TV – but I've come to accept it for the convenience of playing on the couch (usually with someone watching next to me).
I know some blame is on the TV, as often if I just hard-reset the worst of the lag spikes go away (clearly some background task is hogging CPU). And sometimes the sound system glitches and repeats the same tone until I reset that. Still worth putting up with for the couch.
I was really surprised by how many games still end up feeling playable on a cross-continent Moonlight session. With ~70ms ping, there's still a lot of "realtime" games that feel fine.
Platformers tend to be a-ok, although anything with mouselook aiming tends to be really rough, since you rely so much harder on a tighter visual feedback loop for constant adjustments to aim.
Do any of these support migrating the content of a Discord server (from some 3p archive tool)?
Can anyone suggest a good archive tool? The open source project I help run has ~10 years of conversations, bug reports, feature requests, etc. sunk into Discord, and obviously I want to preserve all that (not sure we'll end up leaving the platform, but it's good to have backups anyhow).
Our bug reports / FRs are in forum channels, and I've written a script to extract those and potentially import them into some bug-tracker. But I'd like something good that can archive the entire thing in a reasonable format.
> 3M does not provide product information on which filters are best for government repression
Great writing.
>When I eventually sat down to write my article about the Portland protests, I had a strange kind of epiphany, if it can even be called that. Out in the real world, when drowning in tear gas and adrenaline
Bad writing.
This is a genius product review right now for all the reasons everyone else thinks it is. I didn't need to read a single one of the authors personal experiences to understand the underlying message, or read ~100 words about their internal struggles to classify Portland as a riot versus a protest. The lack of brevity and conciseness seriously undercuts the absolute geniusness of maliciously compliant product reviews about gas masks in our current political climate.
My comment is about the art of subtlety. Again, this is an amazing article, but it's literally just been flagged by HN because it waxes poetic about politics instead of allowing all of that to be there without saying it. We can all read between the lines.
That makes sense to me. I really enjoyed the personal anecdotes and I thought they made the article a lot stronger for me, but a dry gas mask review would have also been an excellent, albeit different, article.
No, it's actually you who is the one who is misunderstanding.
The product review, while it does stand on its own, is not the main purpose.
The point is to render absurd the incredulous comments from Pam Bondi, "How did these people go out and get gas masks?" Bondi did not ask this question to receive an answer, "oh, they go to Home Depot and get model X-54-Whatever." The point of her question was to cast aspersion on the protestors, to attempt to delegitimize their grievances by painting them as paid, professional agitators. It's the sort of "I'm just sayin'" bullshit rhetoric we've all had to deal with from racist uncles at Thanksgiving for the last 25 years.
Jeong's article works by failing to engage Bondi's comments on Bondi's grounds. Jeong's use of product review as a structure for her article is a conceit that treats Bondi's comments as a legitimate request for product reviews, side-stepping the concept that only paid professionals could ever know anything about gas masks, because information on the Internet is and wants to be free.
You missed that a judge denied the arrest warrant for Don (while approving some others) citing insufficient evidence. Govt appealed, appeals court denied again. They arrest him anyways.
It was clearly not a protest but obstruction by others. And he was not taking part of the obstruction, just documenting it.
I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning, but arrasting him was probably not needed (whether conspiracy took part or not), as he didn't seem to disrupt the church.
FACE covers "physical" obstruction or threats of violence or force. Standing in the room and yelling is not physical obstruction, and none of what was yelled was threatening violence. Regardless, Don Lemon himself didn't take part in any of that - he just went there to film it.
The DOJ just wants to scare people out of protesting or reporting on crimes, score some points with their religious base, and "own the libs" by turning the FACE act around, probably in retaliation for the (IMO overcharging) of the "Pro Life Grandmother" aka Paula “Paulette” Harlow:
>“[The defendants] forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains, and ropes,” the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said.
> I can understand DOJ charging him with conspiracy if he took part of the planning
The story includes a link to the entire livestream. You may be interested in the interview with protest coordinators before they enter the church.
I remember seeing an edited video on the order of 5 minutes long on Don Lemon's own channel that seems to be gone now, although the livestream is still there.
I lean more toward DOJ here. He knew in advance, showed up, and went inside. That’s participation. Not standing outside or peering through the door, but occupying the building. Having a camera doesn’t make that journalism. There’s no freedom of speech to defend here
Note, I'm not using my own judgement. I'm no lawyer. But the judge refused Don's arrest on grounds of no probable cause [1][2].
I agree it seems the protestors may have violated that law by forcibly stopping the service (though I think the judge only found cause for 18 USC section 241: conspiracy against rights), but it seems the judge applied some reasonable discretion to exclude a reporter only there to document it and interview those willing to speak to him. I'd be interested in reading his exact reasoning, but I'm not sure he's shared it.
> than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE
This is besides the point, but: it's not some secret, it's a fact. He works for ICE, and is a pastor.
> Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them.
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
> it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
While it has no bearing on the active case itself, within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case. Would they have a different opinion if the variables were tweaked a bit, but the action and violation of the statute was the same?
It’s always a good exercise to evaluate your opinion this way, it should help keep you honest about legal fairness.
> within this thread it has bearing on exposing the political prejudice of the commenter influencing their opinion about the case
You say that it matters for these silly political "gotcha!" games. I say it therefore does not matter. It is an ad hominem attack which has no basis in the discussion.
I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine. Others want to open it up. You are not the gatekeeper to the discussion and what paths it might take.
> I say it matters to illustrate how someone commenting on a topic can be so ingrained on one side that they can’t conceive, comprehend, or concede that sometimes a law can protect all sides.
Sure, but to what end? What is the purpose of pointing this out? Even pointing it out to the person behaving in such a manner seems foolish: they're just as likely to change their mind as the person pointing it out.
> If you want to shut down discussion because it speaks against your opinion, fine.
It seems the act of disregarding the points being made by others so one can hint that their bias is clouding their judgement to see it the correct way shuts down discussions far more effectively than simply arguing from a certain perspective. As I said before, such an accusation can easily be turned around on the accuser; if you think through what happens there, the accuser just denies it the same as the accused would because that's the only option that moves on from the point which is only relevant to the political game. The entire game theory can be explained in a single sentence. It's not really an interesting game and the best outcome of it in the context of a greater discussion is for it to end as quickly as possible.
> Others want to open it up.
One might consider (perhaps by not being "so ingrained on one side that they can't conceive, comprehend, or concede") that the point of calling out a rhetorical ad hominem is to open the discussion to more critical thinking.
I realize that there are some people that don’t really want the first amendment to cover speech they don’t like and religions they don’t like, but it does. As it relates to the FACE act that includes interruption of those religious services they don’t like too.
Yes, I agree, and these statements do not refute anything I've written in this thread. Besides, what do they even have to do with the ad hominem point we've been discussing? Anyway, we can just move on from that, I guess.
> the first amendment
In this case, the first amendment, as a matter of law, isn't relevant in the context of those who had their religious service interrupted: the service in question was not interrupted by the government. The first amendment concern in this case is whether or not Don Lemon's right to journalistic freedom is being infringed since he's the one who's actually facing criminal prosecution for actions which seem a lot like journalism.
> the FACE act
It appears that Don Lemon did nothing which violates this Act. I guess if you disagree with the judge who found there was no probable cause of such a violation for an arrest warrant, you're more than welcome to explain why. (I mean, surely it's not simply because you disagree with Don Lemon's politics, that would be embarrassing.)
I am sure how from my comments you could have any idea what my opinion about Don Lemon in this situation would be…
But if you must know, I think it’s a long shot that he will be convicted, but he damn sure didn’t make it easy on himself. He should have followed his own advice on his livestream when he was in the car and said “I don’t think I should go in…”
Mobile
https://github.com/settings/billing/licensing
EDIT:
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/how-tos/manage-your-accou...
> If you have been granted a free access to Copilot as a verified student, teacher, or maintainer of a popular open source project, you won’t be able to cancel your plan.
Oh. jeez.
reply