Don't leave it on a cliffhanger, what really happens?

It is a goop. They basically eat themself, except for some predefined core parts, which will then use the rest to grow and connect.

Eh, once you have the pointer, you can just Google for the details (or ask Claude, if you ain't so old old school.)

Why is arr.filter().map() better than arr.reduce()? Doesn't arr.reduce() only loop once through the array?

Chained filter and map don't necessarily iterate multiple times. They certainly can but depending on how things are built they very often run as a single loop with the operations chained.

For me it's about the speed of understanding what the code does. Because filter and map are very constrained in what they can do they quickly tell me a lot about the shape of the computation I'm working with. In contrast reduce is much more flexible and so I need to do a much more detailed analysis to just answer a basic question like "is the result a scalar or another collection?".

Exactly. If I need just filter/map/some etc., I use it. But if I need a combination of more than one, that's a job for reduce().

So you prefer

    arr.reduce((acc, el) => {
      if (el % 2 === 0) {
        acc.push(el * 2);
      }

      return acc;
    }, []);

over

    arr.filter(e => e % 2 === 0).map(e => e * 2)

The only advantage of the reduction as I see it is performance, but this is highly dubious and would need to be profiled for proof (I don't recall seeing removing a pass like this matter in practice). And if perf does matter, a for..of loop would be clearer and one-pass, not to mention async-compatible:

    const result = [];
    for (const el of arr) {
      if (el % 2 === 0) {
        result.push(el * 2);
      }
    }

Exercises like this illustrate why verbal technical job interviews are useful in the age of LLMs--a series of A/B taste preferences seems high signal and ripe for discussion: "Ah, so you're choosing reduce for perf... please describe a scenario you encountered where this made a measurable impact".

I think the point is that once it becomes a crypto key, stock price, weather observation, whatever, the datum ceases to be random and becomes arbitrary.

That is a nonsensical definition of random. If I roll a dice it's random, but if I write down the result it's not?

Arbitrary is also quite different from random. Bad passwords are arbitrary, good passwords are random.

If you ask a human to give an arbitrary number between 1 and 10, the answer will be 7 way more often than a random number between 1 and 10.

Which business will hire a consultant who doesn't fully endorse the AI-everything religion?

Which businesses? Ones who have refunded $10,000 on a $5.00 order or whose database was corrupted by sloppy code.

Unfortunately, there is demand for people who know to sanity check things. It's not glamorous, but neither is damage control.

yeah that's exactly my worry. I'm sure there could be some opportunities if I were in the US but I'm neither a citizen nor a resident. I've worked remotely my whole life and not looking to relocate.

Here's a thought experiment: consider the person that you disagree with the most (politically, religiously, socially, whatever). Would you want _that_ person to have an AI chatbot aligned to them and their views?

there will be millions/billions of people utilizing llms against me supplied by adversary nation states. why do I have to get the shit version if I want to follow the rules? same reason I support the second amendment. why do I have to be the unarmed one? I wont even be able to protect myself from unaligned AIs if I only have one thats been corporately aligned.

Counter thought experiment: consider everyone you can name who has access to AI aligned to them and their views; how many of them would you trust to hold your wallet, never mind trust with anything important? Consider Altman, Musk, Trump, Thiel, etc.

In fairness, a false positive is better than a false negative.

But many false positives lead to a real positive being ignored as a false positive.

Presumably the big scary sysadmins have access to the *.cloudflare.com DNS records, and marketing just needs to push this thing right now and can't wait, so it's easier for them to buy a new domain with a shiny new TLD than wait for pay.cloudflare.com to be authorised.

cloudflare.com/pay probably has a similar chain of approval: if every marketing idea had its own top-level route, it would get pretty crazy with such a big company.

Google manages it though. And you could have a labs.cloudflare.com/idea and make it easy to add new ideas internally.

A similar thing happened in the Falkland's War: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/bbcs-treason-battle...

That's wild. TIL; thanks for sharing. That appears to be an epic failure of all kinds of intelligence on both sides of the war.

And, it's a miracle the gaffe was not explained away as a "strategic master stroke" psyop engineered by the British to fool the other side and lull them into complacency.

> Side 1: Henlo world, look our people are here, about to surprise-attack Side 2, at this surprise location, at this time.

> Side 2: Lol. Not falling for that.

> Narrator: This is all totally absurd, and totally real of course.

> Side 1: Goes ahead with globally broadcasted secret plan anyway.

> Side 2: FML.

> Side 1: After the dust settles. "Psych! Master-Stroke!".

Also, pray tell why is everything (supposedly) "done" by those in positions of power framed as "strategic master stroke"s these days? I suppose only hyperbole makes sense, in a zeitgeist where "leadership" behaviour is jerk, knee-jerk, reactionary-by-default... epileptic.

May I interest you in Jevon's paradox: if a thing becomes cheaper or more efficient, usage tends to go up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

How will increased energy use from *carbon-neutral sources* cause climate change?

You know, the laws of thermodynamics. Every machine generates heat. For example datacenters generate megawatts of it.

Even though you do have less greenhouse gases to trap the heat, you will be pumping more of that heat into the atmosphere, seas and oceans, warming everything up.

You're removing one aspect of climate change but not all aspects of it, still affecting the climate and ecosystems.

Also, for example, we still can't fly passenger and cargo planes with electricity for now, so you won't be able to remove all greenhouse gases, yet.

Look at the data [0]. Yes, energy production and heating is the biggest contributor, and even if you manage to remove it completely with the transportation sector via electrification, half of the emissions are still there.

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

> Even though you do have less greenhouse gases to trap the heat, you will be pumping more of that heat into the atmosphere, seas and oceans, warming everything up.

The amount of heat pumped out by humans this way is so miniscule compared to natural flows that this is a complete non-issue on a global scale, and will be for a very long time.

That is literally what Excel is for. Why didn't you use that first of all?

When all you have is a hammer, but the hammer looks more like a swiss knife

Because I was already doing categorising and analysing same data with agent and I had my session open already. It should've been an easy task for an agent, right?