im sure that any reasonably charismatic software engineer could scare the shit out of a judge/jury based on code analysis ... perusing the linked nasa document, recurrence odds of this particular failure mode do seem significantly greater than the odds of a cosmic bit flip ...
Most of the RAM may not be critical enough to crash the whole system. Just some random app you have open or a browser tab. So even if it is true, most bit flips should not crash a system.
How many of those errors vould result in a full system crash, though? And how many of them are just going to cause silent and mostly-harmless data corruption?
After all, was the error in the first line a typo on my side, or a single-bit upset?
A while ago some researchers registered off-by-one-bit domain name typos, which due to physical key positioning were unlikely to be the result of genuine mistyping. I can't find a reference right now, but I recall them getting quite a lot of queries!
while i do fully expect your comment to get downvoted it is pretty funny and a great question when considering that australian society is probably not a relevant sample space to generalize against
Curious what parts of the average Australian WFH experience would not be able to be generalised to say the US or European worker (in a similar WFH compatible role?).
The only thing I can think of is our poor (by international standards) home internet speeds.
Why not? 40% migrant, of direct or 2nd generation <other culture> and so massive amounts of cross-spread into different world experience and outlook. It's a giant melting pot (and not only because if you leave the pot outside, it melts)
for that particular statistic to be relevant you would have to cross correlate against recent immigrants to australia and whether or not working from home is relevant to their places of employment , then you'd have to start factoring in a culture where laziness is valorized (in stark contrast to the work to death ethic presenting in say japan or america) , and at some point it should probably considered that australia has a world class social safety net ... on a personal basis it does seem likely that a similar outcome would occur globally , because the outcome was literally nothing ("no notable change among people who were not already dealing with mental health concerns") ... just trying to make the point that social science is extremely blind to confounding variables
im not sure if you are gonna get downvoted so im sticking a limb out to cop any potential collateral damage in the name of finding out whether the common inhabitant of this forum considers the idea of low trust vs high trust societies to be inherently racist
What are you people talking about. Have you even looked at the article?
The names of the Asian/Indian people GP is referring to, are explicitly stated to be hallucinations in the article. So, high vs low trust society questions aside, the entire assertion here is explicitly wrong. These are not authors submitting hallucinated content, these are fictitious authors who are themselves hallucinations.
Let me ask you this: what is even the purpose of ECT? What does it cause in the brain, and how come people figured out that this may be a positive thing?
My “anti-ECT” stance is more that even modern ECT still has permanent side effects, “voluntary” does not have the standard meaning in in-patient psychiatry, and it is not impossible for a patient to have more or less every treatment thrown at their brain rather than contacting that patient's regular psychiatrist to get relevant context.
it would be of more interest personally to discuss the topic at hand itself rather than involve our personal opinions , so if you can't make your point another way this is where our ways part
a crumbling society is basically ideal for maximizing human stress and its various expressions ... or so dictated the deprecated term neurasthenia ... while many individuals are forced to deal with debilitating mental conditions , this situation is often incorrectly conflated with having experienced temporary behavioural breakdowns that later resolved (aka normal evolutionary response) ... this conflation wouldnt be such an issue if big pharma wasn't in the picture , overpathologization is definitely in somebodys best interests !
the technology to directly transmit audio without the need for headphones has been around for a while , for a recent implementation one could search up soundlazer
it is interesting to consider that at any point the thoughts in one's skull are not necessarily their own
it seems very clear to me that the inclusion of a singular religious reference does not justify labelling an entire excerpt as having religious over/undertones ... not sure what im missing
i feel like modern youtube just does not scratch the itch that youtube once scratched , it now feels like methadone replacement therapy. available viewing options have been reduced to either short form content or long form content , there is nothing between. i dont enjoy frying my brain with short form content and i dont have the attention span to watch bloviation with the express intent of stretching out video times to maximise revenue. honestly i feel like this applies to the internet as a whole , a facsimile of its former self being puppeted to achieve control. someone probably predicted this , right ?
1. using the company name to label an isolated incident
2. providing a link to the company research unit that directs to the main company page, forcing a second click to view the research unit
3. advertising the company's black friday sale
i have to say 1 pisses me off as it trojans an ad into an existing pattern (uniquely naming disclosures/exploits), 2 and 3 are both slimy but id probably be able to forgive the company if they only implemented one of those two points, as is this is a bit much
personally it has become clear that discussion involving good vs bad is inherently relative to personal frames of reference. in this logic , usage of 'should' degenerates an argument to a personal judgement.
a more professional and unbiased statement would be 'it seems to me that using tool X would mitigate problem Y in our pipeline, because of Z.' this amended statement maximises objectivity compared to the original.
but nobody is gonna spend their whole life delivering extended objective justifications when 'we should start using this tool' suffices for the most part. so i too don't see the value of questioning such benign conversational aspects.
reply