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.

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.

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.

This sounds terrible. My daughter recently got an autism diagnosis which we’ve been able to use to help get her better accommodations in school. Would you mind clueing me in to some of this abusive therapy stuff so that I can recognize it if she ends up in a situation like that?

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.

⊥

He also played John Rolfe in “The New World”, meaning he’s also been a boatman.

Yeah I was barely old enough to be called an adult at the time. Didn’t know much. But knew I wasn’t gonna stay there.

Once upon a time I got a job working at a swimming pool supply store. For a total of about 15 min during my very first shift I was in the main room putting price stickers on things and whatnot. For the remaining hours of my shift I was back in the chlorine room filling up chlorine tanks. Tbf the pool store was following regulations as far as I know. I had goggles and gloves and the room had a big ventilation fan and all that. But even still, I got chlorine all over my skin and clothes and was perpetually dehydrated from the fumes. Had to run to the water fountain like a million times. Afterwards I decided there was no way I was going to work with chlorine all day every day until it killed me so the next day I came in and asked the manager if there was any way I could do other work and not be in the chlorine room. He was like, “unfortunately that’s the job”. So I told him, “ok I understand. In that case I don’t think this is going to work out. Thanks for the opportunity though!” And I left after only one shift. Shortest job I ever had.

I think it’s one of those “probably close enough to random” type things. I found this: https://quantumbase.com/sse/lottery/

I think that’s only true if the lottery numbers you end up with are truly the result of random selection in infinite universes.

Ok, that makes sense. I would agree that for any truly random circumstance, when given infinite iterations, all possible combinations will eventually occur.

I agree with all of that. But the bigger point is that there are things that can’t/won’t happen that we can’t predict, so this means we can’t assume that “there must be a universe in which X happens to me”.

Well, but if there are other “me”s, then there must be some set of common events that must occur in each universe containing a copy of me in order for that individual to qualify as me. In that case, isn’t it entirely possible that those particular things that must be in place preclude certain other possibilities that make it such that there is no chance that some otherwise conceivable events could occur?

But what evidence is there for this being true?

I think Cantor would say you need a proof for that. And I think he would say you can prove it via generating a new real number by going down your set of real numbers and taking the first digit from the first number, the second from the second, third from third, etc. Then you run a transformation on it, for example every number other than 1 becomes 1 and every 1 becomes 2. Then you know that the number you’ve created can’t be first in the set because its first digit doesn’t match, and it can’t be the second number because the second number doesn’t match, etc to infinity. And therefore, if you map your set of whole numbers to your set of real numbers, you’ve discovered a real number that can’t be mapped to a whole number because it can’t be at any position in the set.

Some will say this proves that infinities can be of unequal sizes. Some will more accurately say this shows that uncountable infinities are larger than countable infinities. But the problem I have with it is this: that we begin with the assumption of a set of all real numbers, but then we prove that not all real numbers are contained in the set of all real numbers. We know this because the number we generated literally can not be at any position in the set. This is a paradox. The number is not in the set, therefore we don’t need it to map to a member of the other set. Yet it is a real number and therefore must be in the set. And yet we proved it can’t be in the set.

I’m uncomfortable making inferences based on this type of information. But I’m also not a mathematician. My goal isn’t to start an argument. Maybe somebody who’s better at math can explain it to me better.

If you say so :)