To dismiss it as total fraud is disingenuous, but I do agree that the personification of some of those videos is quite egregious. I don't think anyone expected a chimp to make coherent, grammatically correct sentences. But the relationship between sign/vocalization and emotion/desire is strong and seen in many animals, such as parrots. It depends on your definition of communication I suppose.
The main issue wasn't grammatical correctness, it was being grammatical at all. It's not surprising that an animal can learn individual pieces of vocabulary: anybody whose dog loses its mind when the word "walk" is mentioned, or watched meerkats for significant periods of time can observe vocabulary in animals.
Koko was intended to be taught grammar, specifically the ability to express new thoughts by combining her vocabulary in an ordered way. Despite Francine Patterson's best efforts to convince the world otherwise, Koko never achieved this.
On the flip side, the stm32 firmware hello world from cubeide caused temperature spikes due to spinning. Embassy uses power states efficiently to reduce power draw and temp when nothing is scheduled. It is a huge tangible benefit to use async executors for firmware and I hold the strong belief that it should become the norm for general purpose uC firmware.
There is nothing unique to Async about this: You just put a cortex_m wfi in the main loop, or depending on the STM32 variant, set the sleep or stop bits and related.
I just saw your comment, I couldn't reply to it there, but I just added the edit layer feature, along with other QOL features.
Also, did you try the preview with loop button? It's in the preview drop down. It should let you preview the grid along with what's already in the loop.
I did that, so maybe I'm just missing something but after adding them to the looper and deleting the notes to start a new layer, the old layer doesn't play anymore.
I'd suggest instead of making the loop layers and editors "siblings" ontologically, instead default on app load to have a single layer, then have the option to add more layers and switch between them - add layer then edit, instead of creating a layer and adding it to a list.
I really do like the randomization though, it actually sounded surprisingly nice. Took me a moment to realize what was happening but it's actually a seemingly simple feature that's hard to achieve in full blown DAWs.
No, this isn't what anyone is asking for. Also, point to where Google did any verification?
This seems like more than a false negative. Author clearly stated they were willing to jump through whatever necessary hoops. Google didn't seem to have the hoops to jump through.
he has recently been clawing at relevancy with anti-trans talking points, which is specifically why I think his name would be something google would want to stay away
I had an odd experience that rhymes with this, where I was trying to figure out where I had seen the actress Julie Dreyfus (from Kill Bill), whose Google results are utterly crushed by Julia Dreyfus (of Seinfeld and Veep fame) despite having demonstrably different spellings to their names...maybe it was that simple.
> the core assumption remained that there was a never-ending spring of new people feeding the thing.
Hi Shog, hope you're doing well! Just thought this bit was insightful; I can fully believe this was the idea and the motivating factor for a lot of the decisions made seemingly in a vacuum (from the outside).
How much do you think Area51 and the push for the SE network rather than sticking with the Big Three affected things? I always got the impression that they tried to scale into places that ultimately attracted too much noise and overestimated the willingness of (community) moderators to effectively work for free for them to take on the wave of less technical/principled users.
There was some of that for sure; sites that were all but designed to be attractive nuisances and took near-heroic efforts to moderate at all, with little chance of not causing a lot of drama.
OTOH, topic-specific sites like Mathematics, MathOverflow, Physics, even small ones like Home Improvement or Seasoned Advice... Managed to collect a lot of good stuff: common niche questions with good answers that have a good chance at staying relevant for a long time to come.
In a sane world, a few relevant ads on these sites would be enough to fund them for decades. But that appears to be another area where Google kinda shit the bed.
> engineer the problem away: adjust our tooling and config mechanisms, less strings in our configs, less dynamically-typed scripting etc.
This benefits everyone. Give him the tools to be self-sufficient. Especially since he seems to be aware something isn't right, let him deal with that in his own way, with dignity. What action will he be able to take by pointing out he might have dyslexia? That's a difficult problem to solve on its own, let alone knowing that your team is proverbially glaring at you from across the code review table.
Pushing for more correctness in terms of automation sets a good example; either the code is correct for the intended functionality, or it isn't. The closer you get to enforcing that, the better it is for everyone.
In another comment you mentioned JSON configs. JSONschema validation is a must here, anyway. Even it's just part of the CI/CD process. If it's types, or variables, that requires patience. Just mark those with suggestions - one for wherever it's declared, not for each usage. Marking it at the declaration site means that all other usages will also have to be updated anyway.
Anyone on your team could make the same mistake, so see him as an unintended QA step; if his main class of bug is typos in config files, that's a reflection of your codebase, not him.
reply