I was a bit confused when looking at the English example for Chain-Of-Thought.
It seems that the prompt is a bit messed up because the whole statement is
bolded but it seems that only "appetite regulation is a field of
staggering complexity" part should be bolded. Also that's how it shows up in
the o1-preview response when you open the Chain of thought section.
Thank you!
I almost gave up because there was a lot of formatting issues when sending epub3 or kindle versions to my Kindle using Calibre. What saved me was using epub3 format and sending it through Send-To-Kindle. Now it looks terrific.
That's why I always write a BEGIN statement before executing updates and deletes. If they are not instant or don't return the expected number of modified rows I can just rollback the transaction.
One more that I've heard just recently: "If your code is just juggling with pointers/references, it is likely that it isn't doing much useful. It is only when it starts dealing with actual values that it is starting to do something useful."
Hooks are a step in the right direction, I just have a feeling that having to wrap in useCallback and useMemo and having to add dependencies manually can't be the final step of web app development. I look into the author's suggestions for the next generation of hook api in other libraries. However, I still don't want to rely on those libraries in large long living projects.
Hehe, I don’t know who this is, but it was fun to watch. “I’m a kind of Stalinist fascist ... if I take drugs, then I become passive, and enemies can attack!” LOL!
So, the argument he didn’t even attempt to address in his comparison of smoking to other drugs is that smoking hurts other people directly, while other drugs don’t. The primary reason we have rules against smoking in public is it’s effects on people nearby who are not choosing to smoke. This entire thread was about secondhand smoke, and Zizek didn’t address it.
Similarly, the reasons we have some regulations on smoking in private, and the entire reason we have regulations on drugs is because of the direct damage it does, statistically, to the users, and to the indirect damage it does to other people. For the minority of bad cases, hospital visits for overdoses and car accidents, social services for addicts or their children, rehab, and loss of jobs are real issues. For the larger majority there are still measurable effects on drug users’ lifespans and on the economy.
We are a collective and have no choice about that. We have some shared resources that we need to agree on. If you want to enjoy freedoms, you have to respect other people’s freedoms. Where’s my freedom to breathe clean air if you smoke near me? (I happen to have some athsma, the risks to me of secondhand smoke are greater than mild exposure to carcinogens.)
So yeah, not only is it not a proof, it’s not even a reason to buy the argument that anti-smoking sentiment is ideological. To prove that it’s ideology, you need to demonstrate that smoking is safe.
You're right about wasm not being too complicated, I've learned this when watching David Beazley coding a WebAssembly interpreter in under an hour. And it doesn't require any knowledge about it beforehand.
reply