The problem is not experts having precise terminology in technical settings; the problem is the army of “experts” who will descend upon you if you use the incorrect arbitrary term in colloquial settings. The same sort that will descend on you if you dare refer to a planet orbiting a different star as a planet, not an exo-planet.

A lot of comments here explicitly complain about the precise terminology of experts in technical settings.

And a spattering of domain subject experts being offended that they don't have veto power over colloquial terminology

You can just keep calling it a planet in everyday conversation if that's your jam. There's no astronomy police that will come to get you if you do.

Just expect to be corrected and "well, achually"-ed by people who follow the current naming system, especially in science circles.

Right. Somewhat similar to other dual-use words like “work”, “energy”, “power”, “momentum”.

With such “well, ackshually”s as “you didn’t really do any work at all when you were pushing on that tree trunk” and “you specified watts, but you really wanted to use lumens”.

I'm amused that you described a group policing terminology right after saying there's no group policing terminology.

You said colloquially. They are talking more formally.

Downdetector is a survey, not a detector, and suffers from user confusion when a high-profile service is actually down, as users start reporting unrelated things

It also suffers from people reporting functionally related (but not technical related) things.

Any other service that interacts with Outlook in some way will create downstream effects in other services expecting Outlook to work normally.

Especially when looking constitutes reporting (Schrödinger's downdetector?) and people look at everything after showing up for one thing.

As I understand it, he didn't though. The law had a loophole you could navigate a supertanker through, and there is no duty to adhere to the spirit of a poorly written law.

Yes, that's one possible thing dark matter could be. Not sure what you mean by “give the impression of existence”, rock and magma gives “the impression of existence of a planet”.

Semantics; dark matter means something but we are not sure what.

Define "dark matter" and it's not "dark matter" it's whatever was found.

No, people are rationally responding to a massive change in the economics of producing the slop.

I must have blinked and missed the apology in that comment.

If the existing laws aren't being enforced, why would new laws be enforced either?

  > the existing laws aren't being enforced

People say things like that all the time and I think in many cases it’s just vibes that they hope no one calls them on. If you disagree, give a specific example in antitrust of an action you don’t like and how that action violates a law that you can cite the actual text of. And then tell me how the action and the law are at odds.

My position is that US antitrust law is antiquated and impossibly vague, and needs wholesale renovation so that it can’t just be used as a tool of either political side to help their favored interests.

But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?

> But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?

We don't need laws against using cell-phones while driving, because we already have due-care-and-attention laws that aren't being enforced. The alternative is to enforce the existing laws.

I’m still waiting for you to list an example of one specific instance of antitrust laws not being enforced where you explain what the law explicitly says that our govt didn’t enforce. I claim you’re talking out your ass, prove me wrong.

Unless not having money at the wrong moment results in being cemented into a permanent underclass. There is zero chance that a universal utopia results from any llm that has been as thoroughly corporate-safety-pilled as these are.

The future will be Sony-MS-Nintendo-Apple-Intellect, not Prime-Intellect

That's not specifically bash though, that's process exit codes

Yes. But it's still contradictory

The question you are asking when querying a process exit code is "did this program exit with an error?". The default assumption is "no, it completed successfully", so 0 (false) is the logical expected default return.

A function is expected to produce a result - so the question is "what was the result?". !0 (something) is the logical expected default return.

I've never found it to be contradictory.

But in shell, 0 is true, not false. The program called true returns 0.

"True has 0 errors" is the straightforward part.

"False pretends to have an error" is where it gets weird. It's not that they got booleans backwards, it's that they're stretching a tenuous analogy a bit too far.

> The default assumption is "no, it completed successfully"

Correct

> so 0 (false) is the logical expected default return.

Nope

We came to expect zero because we got accustomed to it. And it is a "good enough solution" in memory constrained systems.

And note some programs attribute >0 and <0 to different types of errors