It was honestly just dumb luck. I had heard of these previously from a friend who had some in the Philippines. I would say, really, I do know nothing about nuts, relatively speaking :)

Yes, but not normal walnuts, black walnuts. What most people think of as walnuts, at least where I’m from, come from the Persian/English walnut tree, Juglans Regia.

Green almonds, right?

Pili nut?

Reminds me of The Gourmet in Skyrim

Don’t feel too bad. A lot of more complicated Java programs utilize JNI with platform-specfic code, so even if you knew it was Java, it’s not a given that it works on Linux - especially given the incredibly complicated nature of decompilation, and that Ghidra has a DSL to define processors/“languages”.

There’s also the NSA’s Ghidra which is a competitor for the best open source application IMO. Previously the only tool for heavy-duty reverse engineering was IDA Pro, which is very expensive (and not open source, of course). The NSA has selfish incentives to have tools like this be open source - free training especially - but it’s still a very good thing.

If we stop doing business with SpaceX, we immediately demolish most of our capability to reach space, including the ISS until Starliner quits failing. Perhaps instead of trying to treat this as a matter of the free market we should recognize it as what it is - a matter of supreme economic and military importance - and force the Nazi fucker out.

I’d be interested in setting up the highest quality models to run locally, and I don’t have the budget for a GPU with anywhere near enough VRAM, but my main server PC has a 7900x and I could afford to upgrade its RAM - is it possible, and if so how difficult, to get this stuff running on CPU? Inference speed isn’t a sticking point as long as it’s not unusably slow, but I do have access to an OpenAI subscription so there just wouldn’t be much point with lower quality models except as a toy.

They have concepts of an ICBM.

Kessler syndrome isn’t really that much of a risk specifically with Starlink (for now at least), as SpaceX seems to be doing things right despite Musk. They’re in such low orbits that even with a catastrophic loss of control, they’ll deorbit very quickly. The real risk comes as more companies and countries try to get a piece of the megaconstellation pie. Starlink in its own seems to be fairly safe and sustainable on its own, but that may quickly change when communication for collision avoidance maneuvers needs to be international.

Despite Musk’s well-earned reputation for being a shithead, SpaceX has this far been doing the right thing far more often than most other space companies, and while it’s certainly possible that will change, the Starlink constellation will entirely disappear very quickly without constant replenishment, so it’s not as if we’d have no chance to act if they begin to show signs of concerning behavior. What’s far more worrying to me in terms of Kessler syndrome is the recent escalation around space warfare, as tensions between Russia, China, and the US continue to boil and nobody seems willing to really commit to making space a neutral zone. Even with space historically being an area of strong international cooperation despite politics (just look at the ISS), that unfortunately seems to be rapidly changing.

Well they said .NET Framework, and I also wouldn’t be surprised if they more or less wrapped that up - .NET Framework specifically means the old implementation of the CLR, and it’s been pretty much superseded by an implementation just called .NET, formerly known as .NET Core (definitely not confusing at all, thanks Microsoft). .NET Framework was only written for Windows, hence the need for Mono/Xamarin on other platforms. In contrast, .NET is cross-platform by default.

Honestly, after DOS2, I’d play a Larian game in any setting just based on them being the devs - and that goes double after BG3. Their handle on storytelling and environments is so good I’d trust it would be enjoyable even in a setting I’m not interested in.

I’ve found it depends a lot on the game. In CP2077, DLSS+frame gen looks great to me with full raytracing enabled. But in The Witcher 3, I found frame gen to cause a lot of artifacts, and in PvP games I wouldn’t use regular DLSS/FSR. In general I’ve found the quality preset in DLSS to be mostly indistinguishable from native on 3440x1440, and I’m excited to try FSR 3 when I get the chance.

1. This is the first administration in decades to take antitrust and consumer protections seriously
2. The DoJ Antitrust Division has been very busy this term. See the assistant AG’s Wikipedia for some details
3. Taylor Swift

If you haven’t been keeping up with US antitrust litigation this year this would seem a little out of the blue, but the DoJ and FTC have been, at least comparatively, knocking it out of the park under Biden.

For more information, the term for the more corporation-friendly philosophy that’s been dominant since roughly sometime in the 90s is the “Chicago School of economics”. The Chicago School’s ideas on antitrust are pretty ridiculous:

• If a merger won’t result in immediate price increases or output decreases, it is generally considered acceptable. There is little concern for long-term effects.
• There is consideration for the intent of a merger. Lack of evidence of an intent to monopolize is given serious consideration in determining whether antitrust law applies.
• The argument that mergers result in increased efficiency through scale is generally given more weight than concerns about market consolidation.
• There is a general assumption that, if a company does become monopolistic, the market will self-correct. The idea is that new entrants to a market segment or other competitive forces will act as a natural corrective agent.

The Biden administration marks the beginning of a move away from the Chicago School. In particular, as far as I’m aware, Lina Khan (chair of the FTC) and Jonathan Kanter (head of the DoJ Antitrust Division) are very bullish on antitrust enforcement. One recent example of the progress was the ban on non-competes by the FTC, which indirectly acts as an antitrust measure.

Edit: You can see from my outline of Chicago School antitrust philosophy that it’s inherently contradictory. There’s an emphasis on allowing mergers, but there’s also a belief that market entrants will stop monopolies. We’ve repeatedly seen over the past couple decades that, when a company tries to enter a monopolized market segment, the monopoly will merge with the entrant at any cost. It would be funny if it hadn’t caused serious harm. See: grocery prices (especially in Canada with their duopoly).

See Miyake event.

I’m only an armchair physicist, but I believe this isn’t possible due to relativity. I know that, at least, there are cases where two observers can disagree on whether an event occurred simultaneously. Besides all the other relativity weirdness, that alone seems to preclude a truly universal time standard. I would love for someone smarter than me to explain more and/or correct me though!

You’re looking for Fred Rogers, more commonly Mr. Rogers. He was the host of the popular children’s show Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, and is revered for having been incredibly compassionate both in public and private.

I was very intrigued by a follow-up to the recent numberphile video about divergent series. It was a return to the idea that the sum of the integers greater than zero can be assigned the value -1/12. There were some places this could be used, but as far as I know it was viewed as shaky math by a lot of experts.

As far as I recall the story goes something like this: now, using a new technique Terrence Tao found, a team was seemingly able to “fix” previous infinities in quantum field theory - there’s a certain way to make at least some divergent series work out to being a real number, and the presenter proposed that this can be explained as the universe “protecting us” from the infinities inherent in the math.

It made me think about other places infinities show up in modern physics (namely, singularities in general relativity) and whether a technique something like this could “solve” them without a whole new framework like string theory is.

The issue is that, in the function passed to reduce, you’re adding each object directly to the accumulator rather than to its intended parent. These are the problem lines:

if (index == array.length - 1) {
	accumulator[val] = value;
} else if (!accumulator.hasOwnProperty(val)) {
	accumulator[val] = {}; // update the accumulator object
}

There’s no pretty way (that I can think of at least) to do what you want using methods like reduce in vanilla JS, so I’d suggest using a for loop instead - especially if you’re new to programming. Something along these lines (not written to be actual code, just to give you an idea):

let curr = settings;
const split = url.split("/");
for (let i = 0; i < split.length: i++) {
    const val = split[i];
    if (i != split.length-1) {
        //add a check to see if curr[val] exists
        let next = {};
        curr[val] = next;
        curr = next;
    }
    //add else branch
}

It’s missing some things, but the important part is there - every time we move one level deeper in the URL, we update curr so that we keep our place instead of always adding to the top level.