Am I the only one who wishes this had a USB port? I get frustrated with very capable devices not offering a USB port to plug in a USB drive. It's already plugged into the TV, and TVs usually have such awful software that I usually want to avoid using the built in video player. The number of times I've lugged a laptop somewhere when there is something perfectly capable that doesn't allow me to do what I want.
Apple TV, Nintendo Switch, ... I'm sure I had more examples. Both obviously capable of playing a video file, but it is not built into the software.
I wanted to chime in with another example - sort of related to the European hatchbacks you mentioned.
For some reason, the Peugeot 405 is way lighter than I expected. Also not much above 1000kg for some versions. I was also shocked by how nice a place it was to be in, even at highway speeds, on not particularly great roads. I don't remember anything about the road noise, but the ride quality was good.
Well off-topic: One thing I always remember, is that one time I paid attention to the number of different shades of grey there were in the interior, and it was ridiculous. Almost nothing matched anything else. And yet, it was a very pleasant place to be. That car has by far the largest discrepancy of any vehicle, between how much I mocked it and how much I liked being in it or driving it. I was just completely wrong!
I am coordinating a 504 restoration and realised yesterday that the new Morgan is almost as heavy as the 504. It would weigh more that a 405. A Morgan!
OT - if the Iran regime collapses, it will be an amazing time for 405 restoration in the west. They can still make so many new parts.
I've just written another post somewhere in this thread about discovering a nice feature in KDE Plasma, and remembered my recent search for a way to output HDMI from my old iPhone without ridiculous compression, and all this Linux phone talk stated to make me have crazy thoughts about how much I want Plasma Mobile. I was all set to write "just give me Plasma Mobile on something the size of an iPhone 13 Mini, and I don't care how much doesn't work". I used a 1st Gen iPhone SE, years past where it was sensible. I can suffer.
I started to list my few, basic must-haves - aware that everyone has a different list - but my own short list got embarrassingly long, very quickly. I thought I had simple requirements!
Obvious basics which surely aren't too much to ask: email, calendar, reminder and note syncing, password manager with TOTP generator, instant messaging (willingly to compromise and have only Signal or WhatsApp), route navigation, basic browsing, half-decent camera, ...
Phone calls - so I probably need 4G and 5G...
Oh - plus uncountable other small apps or utilities that hardly seem worth mentioning: calculator, file browser, compass, voice memos, ...
And then I thought about the ever-growing list of big, ugly Apps that I could live without, but really do make my life easier. Banking apps (sigh - I hate how many of these virtually require an app), the app to unlock my apartment block door, Outlook, Teams, ...
And then I started having sensible, disappointing thoughts. Maybe I'd rather just keep the iPhone 13 Mini. I just got a new battery (and bonus screen) installed by Apple on the weekend...
But seriously, when that starts to be unusable... if I have to carry something obnoxiously large, it better run mainstream Linux and turn into a desktop when I plug a USB-C dock into it!
I am often finding things I prefer about one of the OSs (or Desktop Environments in the case of Linux) that the others don't have. I can usually see how people prefer any particular one over the other.
The usual suspects are the keyboard support in Windows (enabling the extended keyboard navigation in MacOS made some apps act very strangely), and most of the look and feel of MacOS. There have even been things I really liked in ChromeOS.
Obviously there are many nice touches in the big Linux DEs, and I would rather be in KDE Plasma than anywhere else. Because of this, I'm generally not surprised when I encounter something that is done better than Windows or MacOS.
However...!
Yesterday I was editing filenames in the file browser, and accidentally navigated down to the next file in the folder - still in filename editing mode! It was a feature I didn't even know I wanted. Suddenly, I could edit a whole list of files, just as if it were rows in a text file. Now it's Monday, and I'm back in Windows. I am unlikely to need to use that feature, but still wish I didn't know what I was missing.
> Yesterday I was editing filenames in the file browser, and accidentally navigated down to the next file in the folder - still in filename editing mode! It was a feature I didn't even know I wanted. Suddenly, I could edit a whole list of files, just as if it were rows in a text file. Now it's Monday, and I'm back in Windows. I am unlikely to need to use that feature, but still wish I didn't know what I was missing.
In case you do ever need it - you can do this in Windows with the tab key.
That is quite nice! I don't think I ever knew that. It doesn't feel quite as nice as using the down arrow in a list/details view, but it's plenty good enough.
Anyone have the equivalent for MacOS? :) I don't have any MacOS devices handy.
To me at least, the scenario of moving from Montana to Washington, and leaving cars registered to Montana, seems less wrong than the commonly abused loophole.
As I understand, a fairly large number of people register cars in Montana while never living in the state.
Edit: Just to add, maybe the scenario you described should be cracked down on, but it feels like less purposeful avoiding/evading a tax. My opinion is that could come afterwards, with more warning given to people.
Wait, are you saying neverssl.com now sometimes uses SSL?
If this is a joke, it's over my head. If not, I'm not knowledgeable enough in this space to pass judgement, but that would seem crazy to me. Like the owner should consider a domain name change :)
It has SSL on the main domain, and some subdomains without SSL (wildcard perhaps?). The main domain (when accessed over SSL?) redirects to a subdomain with plain HTTP.
Kinda weird setup!
Edit: okay, the subdomains also have SSL. I guess the random subdomain thing is to make sure it hasn’t been cached in a “this site has HTTPS” list. The HTTPS is needed, of course, to please the browser makers, as the parent says.
As I understood the message, the GP post stated their predicted price for Adobe, and the target price for the options they purchased, not any change in price that has already occurred.
Is there some sort of specific meaning or rule in this domain that makes this problem mean something different to how it would be read at face value?
Without knowing anything extra, to me this reads:
1. Alan is young, round and kind
2. Alan is sometimes rough
3. Kind with rough skin are usually red
(Alan has not been stated to be in this category - unless "sometimes rough" implies "rough skin")
4. If red, then green
(As above, no information yet on whether Alan is red, so this gives no additional information about Alan)
5. Young, round and green are usually blue
(No information yet on whether Alan is green, so this gives no additional information about Alan)
6. Statement: Alan is not blue = ??
(No additional information since statements 1 & 2: Alan is young, round and kind, Alan is sometimes rough)
BTW - I have just numbered the statements in the order I used them, in case anyone wants to correct or discuss anything. This isn't the order they were given.
Edit: I am forgetting my predicate logic, and didn't recognise this. I think this example has more decoration (is more loosely worded) than I was ever used to. I now think "sometimes rough" and "rough skin" are intended to be interpreted as meaning the same thing.
That makes everything I wrote above this edit wrong. With the statement that Alan is rough, it is implied that Alan is usually blue
I think we have to assume that the paraphrasing is at best a poor paraphrase and at worst completely misleading.
The paraphrased statement contains soft, non-deterministic hedges like "usually" and "sometimes", which would of course introduce uncertainty. Uncertainty -> low confidence.
The article strips out the actual prompt that went to Luna so we can't be sure they haven't ballsed the prompt just as they did with the paraphrase.
Compare the paraphrase to the language used in the actual paper they're trying to base their benchmark on:
> Bob is round.
> Alan is blue, rough and young.
> If someone is round then they are big.
> All rough people are green.
> Big people are not green.
This is obviously much easier to make certain statements about (the only thing we have to assume is that Bob and Alan are both "people").
> Alan is young, round, and kind, but that doesn't mean he isn't also rough and cold at times, as well.
What we learn: Alan is young, round, kind. These things don't prevent Alan from being cold or rough. Alan might or might not be "rough and cold" at times. It is not clear if Alan can be rough without being cold, or vice-versa.
> Young round people who are green are usually blue.
This tells us nothing about Alan. It tells us that young, round people can be both green and blue.
> Kind people with rough skin are usually red because it's wind burn.
Alan has been described as kind. We do not know if Alan is currently rough, we do not know if Alan has rough skin. Even if Alan had rough skin, we do not know if Alan is currently red.
> If someone shows that they are red, then they are also showing that they are green.
What does "showing" mean here? Either way if someone is "showing that they are red", then they also "showing that they are green", OK. I guess it also means that people can show that they are red and green.
> Statement: Alan is not blue.
Let's go through what we know about Alan.
Alan is young, round, and kind. Alan could at times be rough and cold.
That's all we know about Alan. We can't be certain that Alan is anything else.
Even if Alan were currently rough and being currently rough can be equated to "having rough skin", we still can't be sure if Alan is red as a result of said "rough skin" (only usually red).
Even if Alan is red as a result, we don't know if this counts as Alan is "showing" that they are red.
If we count Alan is red as "Alan is showing that they are red", then we can conclude that Alan is "showing" that they are both red and green.
If we count Alan is "showing that they are green" as "Alan is green", this STILL doesn't mean that the statemen "Alan is not blue" is false.
We do know (after we make ALL these assumptions) that Alan could be young, round, kind, rough/rough-skinned, (showing as) red/green..
So if someone is young, round and green, they are USUALLY blue.. THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALAN IS ACTUALLY BLUE.
I think the statement is supposed to be clear despite the hedges because the statement itself is absolute, and we should assume that the info given is all info we have about Alan. So stating "XY is false" when we in fact know "XY could be true, we just don't know whether it is" is wrong.
If dogs are "usually wet", the statement "my neighbor's dog is not wet" is FALSE as long as we have no more information about your neighbor's dog.
Is that how it's meant? Struggling myself. But I think that would kind of make sense.
The statement "Alan is not blue" is not false because we know his color, it's false because we can't ascertain that he is NOT blue from the given information.
Similar category as "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" though, just with different hedges/probabilies? In that case, we'd lean "probably there is not such a cup", in this cryptic example, we are given clear indications equivalent to "teacups floating around Saturn have been observed before".
Again, you need frame the article around the paper they're trying to build their benchmark against. Yes, the real world/natural language is fuzzy, but the ProofWriter paper (that this article bases it's own benchmark on) is not about taking fuzzy rules and turning them into proofs, it's about taking concrete statements, mapping those to facts, rules and conclusions.
We CAN'T from the statement "dogs are usually wet" make any conclusions about the wetness state of your neighbours dog.
We CAN from the statement "there is no teacup floating around Saturn" create a rule, specifically about teacups floating around Saturn.
As silly as that rule sounds, it allows you to refine/test against things, for example your space engineering team might have been under the assumption that no coffee mugs are orbiting Saturn, so you ask your all-knowing oracle what the probabilities of that statement being false are and you CAN get an answer that it rightfully doesn't know. That allows your space engineers to go back to the drawing board about the proof itself, is it actually that there's no crockery at all floating around Saturn? We can generalise our proof, then and cover off dinner plates and bowls as well instead of just tea cups.
The point is you don't _want_ the model to guess, in that scenario. You want it to say "I don't know, I don't have enough information to make that conclusion based on what you've told me about Saturn so far", which is exactly what Luna seems to do and get "wrong", according to the blog.
I'm not sure whether my guesswork was helpful, but I think the whole "probabilities" thing is not helpful here.
The teacups-floating-around-Saturn example was loosely copied from Bertrand Russell.
What my guesswork was aiming at was that my only meaningful interpretation of the example, taken as a riddle, with "free variables", was that the conclusion is wrong as in "not derivable from the given facts".
I agree in that I'd prefer to encode this as "I don't know".
But depending on how you interpret "false" and "true", the conclusion is false, and stating something as true that cannot be proven is false.
It's not very intuitive until applied to abstract terms instead of concrete ones, and I'm sure there's a fancy name for this higher-level logic.
Was also burned by this when the WiFi module on my switch died. Had to send it away to be repaired, whereupon they swapped the main board (including all my saved games!). But the only way to backup before sending it away was ... Via the nonfunctional WiFi to the cloud.
I am in no way justifying or defending Nintendo decisions or actions here, I just wanna point out that if it was only the Wi-Fi card and not the entire NIC then you could have put it in the dock or a USB laptop dock, and connected it to ethernet.
I would still prefer to copies to an SD card, but you had options potentially
Off topic, on the house price fear - the bubble does occasionally burst! Japan (famously), and also here's a story about Canada & New Zealand, and perhaps Australia.
Apple TV, Nintendo Switch, ... I'm sure I had more examples. Both obviously capable of playing a video file, but it is not built into the software.
reply