In Germany I spent exactly 0 dollars/euros on books in university. We got access to a huge amounts of ebooks through the university network and profs never required a specific one and would just recommend a few. One of these was always available. This free access was of course covered by the 250 euros per semester tuition…
But yes, standards and certifications are horrible.
I would understand if they didn't backup anything with FILE_ATTRIBUTE_RECALL_ON_DATA_ACCESS set (on Windows). Everything else makes their product worthless.
Since all input is run through a tokenizer, I would expect the tokenizer space doesn't change a lot between one trained on uncompressed vs one trained on compressed data.
Didn't read the paywalled article. But imo if it's not worth listening at 1x speed, it's not worth listening at all.
If it's entertainment like audiobooks, it's for my enjoyment, so why should it be faster than 1x? If it's for education, everything faster than 1x makes it hard to understand, and if there is too much filler content, I will find another source to learn about it.
I use 1.5x-2x for stuff I have to listen too, but don't enjoy.
It would be a non issue, if the options are not just allow/disallow, but also offer to provide random/fake data, so bad apps would not actually know if the permission is allowed or if the data is fake.
None of Amazon Just Walk Out, Nate or Engineer.ai used GPT-class LLMs.
Pre-ChatGPT (2022)? Sure. Meme applies. Today, it doesn't make sense--the closest comparison for AI's coding output is that of a mediocre offshore IT outsourcer.
I would argue that most of these features (basically everything except metaclasses) are not advanced features. These are simple, but for some reason less well known or less used features.
Metaclasses are however quite complex (or at least lead to complex behavior) and I mostly avoid them for this reason.
And 'Proxy Properties' are not really a feature at all. Just a specific usage of dunder methods.
I do like the else clause with for loops. However most people are not familiar with it, and also `else:` as a keyword is confusing. I always remember it as `no break:`.
That's still confusing though. The problem here is that `else` is semantically attached to `break`, but syntactically attached to the body of the loop. The latter makes it look like it executes if the loop body didn't, if you interpret it in the most straightforward way.
IMO a better design would be to have a block that always executes at the end of the loop - there's even a reasonable keyword for it, `finally` - but gets a boolean flag indicating whether there was a break or not:
for server in servers:
if server.check_availability():
primary_server = server
break
finally did_break:
if not did_break:
primary_server = backup_server
Or better yet, make `break` take an optional argument (which defaults to `True` if unspecified), and that's what you get in `finally`. So this could be written:
for server in servers:
if server.check_availability():
break server
finally server:
primary_server = server if server is not None else backup_server
But yes, standards and certifications are horrible.
reply