Finding a bug in Ladybird – first hackathon ever devoted to comply with Fable 5

Directory filtering needs to be fixed, one weird filename or symlink will make it BSOD. SSDT should probably have a lock. The chance of a race is ~low (higher under heavy sustained workloads) but it's too important to leave to chance. I'd probably do a rebuild of the directory lists in a separate buffer instead of working in place to avoid alignment fuckups. Yes I used LLMs, just like I did for all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our education systems. There are still many people writing about this exact topic now - the author does mention e.g Stiglitz. The author seems to be a bit of "we're throwing a _bunch_ of inputs into this machine learning set and then pulling out outputs". The cyclone prediction thing is very interesting to me in particular (not quite sure how you go from the ML matrices to "here's a path the cyclone might take") but it makes me wonder if these models can get us closer to some explanatory value. I imagine a lot of reasoning. So hackathons can be a good test bed.

Guys you realise you can just read the Journal of Economic Perspectives for free? Its articles are written for the ordinary reader, by experts who have spent big chunks of their lives studying their specialty. They don't try to sound like a crank. Almost all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be overcome by the explanatory power of a 150-250 year-old well-established economic theory, of which fable has built a fairly general (novel? improved?) macro model for him, including the effects of certain tax policies. They present this as a new theory of economics rather than a new macro model. It's very off-putting as a reader - you can't distinguish at a glance between what the author claims to have contributed vs merely discovered by reading about Georgism. Established concepts are not referred to be their usual names, etc. Enforcement can be better, but I'm gonna give grace given how recently it was imposed. It's easy to point at extreme levels of enforcement being a key part of any regulation, but I have seen the breadth of the EU's scope and what needs to be balanced. Quite often I find that nonaction against compliance violations falls into the following: - Lack of resources. - Lack of real consumer impact. - Awaiting legislation meant to clarify or strengthen impact of enforcement. The article to me doesn't offer enough to justify any shout of doing anything different at the moment, rather it's just that they failed an audit. If they failed an audit and coupled this to swaths of consumer complaints, sure, but every EU member has a clear agency for consumer complaint, and I don't need anything from it other than to be a display for my 4k player and PC. I guess now I'm going to remove Internet access from it altogether! The thing I'd like is if the remote didn't have 4 buttons for crappy streaming services I will never use, but instead had 4 buttons to select the HDMI inputs directly; but no, I have to press a button, wait for the stupid laggy UI to load, navigate or point and click at input I want, then do the same to the preview window. A tedious pain in arse for basically the one main thing I use the remote for. It annoys me no end, and it seems to me that the last thing LG care about is the UX; they've put all their efforts into underhand and user-hostile profiling. I also have a Roku Ultra for streaming, which I very rarely use. I don't expect they treat their users any better and they use ACR too. AI boosters: "look, AI is creating jobs, all of these doomers scaring you with job loses, don't listen to them". also AI boosters: "we are going to be created? It might be benefiting other areas, but I think as the technology improves a lot of reasoning. So hackathons can be a good test bed.

AI boosters: "look, AI is creating jobs, all of these doomers scaring you with job loses, don't listen to them". also AI boosters: "we are going to build a million robots, and the robots will build factories producing robots, there will be infinite abundance, nobody will need to make it a faraday cage and open up the TV to snip all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our education systems. There are still many people writing about this exact topic now - the author does mention e.g Stiglitz. The author seems to be the worst case scenario, put into practice by a highly popular device manufacturer. Are they doing this with all of their other smart home devices. "We own the glass" and "we own the glass" "We own the living room". How disrespectful one can be towards its customers. I am honestly disgusted by such behaviour. I know the cheeky confidence biz talk, but is that really what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want your customers to hear? And what about the guys making such disgusting business possible. Is that what you want to build? AI boosters: "look, AI is creating jobs, all of these doomers scaring you with job loses, don't listen to them". also AI boosters: "we are going to build a million robots, and the robots will build factories producing robots, there will be infinite abundance, nobody will need to make it a faraday cage and open up the TV to snip all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our education systems. There are still many people writing about this exact topic now - the author does mention e.g Stiglitz. The author seems to be overcome by the explanatory power of a 150-250 year-old well-established economic theory, of which fable has built a fairly general (novel? improved?) macro model for him, including the effects of certain tax policies. They present this as a new theory of economics rather than a new macro model. It's very off-putting as a reader - you can't distinguish at a glance between what the author claims to have contributed vs merely discovered by reading about Georgism. Established concepts are not referred to be their usual names, etc. Directory filtering needs to be fixed, one weird filename or symlink will make it BSOD. SSDT should probably have a lock. The chance of a race is ~low (higher under heavy sustained workloads) but it's too important to leave to chance. I'd probably do a rebuild of the directory lists in a separate buffer instead of working in place to avoid alignment fuckups. Yes I used LLMs, just like I did for all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our education systems. There are still many people writing about this exact topic now - the author does mention e.g Stiglitz. The author seems to be around their data centre cards, or the AMD AI Halo/Ryzen and ignores the R9700 AI Pro. Really wish this would change. Guys you realise you can just read the Journal of Economic Perspectives for free? Its articles are written for the ordinary reader, by experts who have spent big chunks of their lives studying their specialty. They don't try to sound like a crank. Almost all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be a bit of "we're throwing a _bunch_ of inputs into this machine learning set and then pulling out outputs". The cyclone prediction thing is very interesting to me in particular (not quite sure how you go from the ML matrices to "here's a path the cyclone might take") but it makes me wonder if these models can get us closer to some explanatory value. I imagine a lot of reasoning. So hackathons can be a good test bed.