Elaborate... what do you mean? How does it do so? Do they mean recover from loss of observability?

The antecedent of "this possibility" is unclear. (Perhaps it used to be clear and then someone else made an edit and added a sentence in between?)

Wrong. Here, I'll show you:

Forget about AGI for a moment. Instead, pretend we're talking about pecan pie. Most people probably can't answer the question, "What would I recognize as a pecan pie?" (or a sandwich). And yet thousands of people are able to make (and thousands more people are able to enjoy) pecan pie all the time—probably every day.

I don't understand this.

Okay, I stuck it out like the author here requested but I'm still left wondering what any of this is in reference to.

This is insufficiently explained.

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: ‘RT @CT_Bergstrom: I also dislike the choice of axis scales. I don’t mind line graphs with axes that don’t go to zero (https://t.co/EpPNR9Lx…’ / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved 22 March 2022, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1477181158425251840

Still not clear what this daemon does...

And when you say switch display between HiDPI and LoDPI, what does that do? If it's a high-DPI display, does it emulate a low-DPI experience, for example by scaling/zooming / using 2 output pixels for every 1 in the input picture.

Is this the same as the fractional scaling feature?

The GUI for it:

• lets me enable/disable (what happens if I disable?)
• Change Mode: "Enable to render LoDPI displays at HiDPI resolution". What does that mean?

I tried disabling both of those options but

1. hidpi-daemon was still running
2. I noticed no visible change

So I just killed the process. Again, no visible change. So again, what does this daemon actually do for me? What is the benefit of having it running? (I'm not the only one wondering: https://www.reddit.com/r/pop_os/comments/lwsf4a/hidpi_daemon/ , https://www.reddit.com/r/pop_os/comments/lxpfpl/hidpidaemon_was_a_huge_battery_drain_for_me_had/ )

Again, wild speculation. Popularity is not necessarily as a result of tendency to evoke an emotional response but perhaps the fact that they play a powerful position in society or "famous" in the first place. Merely rousing emotional responses in others would not lead to centrality of anyone's position in a network, will it?

What does the (dashed) arrow for fork() mean? Why does it point that way? Which one is a fork of / has forked which one?

It's a good analogy, but I think it's misleading/confusing/unclear/incorrect, because parts of ActiveInteraction are ActiveModel, so I guess ActiveInteraction deals with your nouns too?

this is unclear

I don't think that is surprising, is it? Since && and || have the same order of precedence. So I think this is more of a clarification than a caveat.

I think this is just because:

a && b || c is equivalent to: (a && b) || c (so of course c gets evaluated if (a && b) is false (that if either a or b is false).

I think they just mean, in this case:

bedmap && mv || fail

if mv fails, then fail still gets executed.

Easier to see with a simpler example:

⟫ true && false || echo 'fail'
fail

⟫ false && true || echo 'fail'
fail

Better example/explanation here: https://hyp.is/-foxmCVXEeuhnLM-le_R4w/mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls

The caveat/mistake here is if you treat it / think that it is equivalent to if a then b else c. That is not the case if b has any chance of failing.

I think this:

However, those descriptors gave a bit too much flexibility/dynamism to the class shape in order to be efficiently optimizable.

means:

However, because those descriptors were gave so much too much flexibility/dynamism to the class shape, it could not be be efficiently optimized.

rather than:

In order to be efficiently optimizable, those descriptors gave much flexibility/dynamism to the class shape.

In other words that flexibility/dynamism hindered optimization; it wasn't for the purpose of optimization (as "in order to be" could be interpreted as).

The "too much" wording also contributed to the confusion for me.

But maybe just dropping "in order" would have been enough for me:

However, those descriptors gave a bit too much flexibility/dynamism to the class shape to be efficiently optimizable. or However, those descriptors gave a bit too much flexibility/dynamism to the class shape for them to be efficiently optimizable.

Clarified a bit further on: https://hyp.is/R9zbNhjOEeuWFzuvIEknzw/www.basefactor.com/react-final-form-validation-fonk

first sighting: use of superscripts like this

I like it. Nice and concise and understandable.

• s¹  critical
• s²  important
• s³  nice to have
• s⁴  low
• s⁵  inconvenient

But in other cases, the abbreviation is quite unclear and ambiguity:

Like, what does "pr" mean in these cases?

priority? Doubt it.

• pr¹  chore
• pr²  docs
• pr³  feature
• pr⁴  fix
• pr⁵  performance
• pr⁶  refactor
• pr⁷  style

Pull Request? Doubt it. But maybe?

For axes that are quantifiable, like severity, using a number makes sense. But what benefit is there in including a number in these (platform?) labels?:

• p¹ ⋅ browser
• p² ⋅ linux
• p³ ⋅ mac
• p⁴ ⋅ windows

I think this would have been better and clearer (in that fewer people would be like huh? and wonder what it means):

• platform: browser
• platform: linux
• platform: mac
• platform: windows

So the posted answer wasn't necessary/correct? Which part of the answer was incorrect/unneeded?

I wish this OP comment included the full version of code that worked.

I don't understand this OP comment. Wasn't OP already returning loginDaoCall? So maybe the only thing they could mean is that they just needed to change it to return loginDaoCall.then(...) instead...

That would be consistent with what the answer said:

the promise returned by the further .then() does also get rejected and was not handled.

So I guess the unnecessary part of the answer was adding the return true/false...

By "sending an email" are you referring to a user signing up by sending an email to a certain address? I might have been less surprised by that notion if it was <2000, but is this even done anymore? I haven't seen it done for a while. Almost everyone signs up for things via web forms, it seems.

Isn't "kept in writing" different from "maintaining their records electronically"? How can digital data be kept in writing? Is that meant figuratively then? Why would they use figurative language here? What do they mean by "kept in writing"??

This part doesn't work as expected or I don't fully understand the procedure.

If I do the export ssb_appname="ssb-test", and launch ssb-server, there is a new .sbb-test/secret file which contains my new identity. When I put the new shs and sign keys, generated from the node REPL, as indicated, and I try to run any sbot command I get the message about not being able to connect ssb-server, despite of already started it.

unclear expectations. This is a common thread.

Overall scientific credibility: 'debated' among the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Não entendi bem essa parte: "... allowing training of a deep supervised network without unsupervised pre-training".

Overall scientific credibility: 'neutral' to 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

"I have, in the following little volume, collected a few of these, the Love-Songs of a single province merely, which I either took down in each county of Connacht from the lips of the Irish-speaking peasantry - a class which is disappearing with most alarming rapidity - or extracted from MSS, in my own possession, or from some lent to me, made by different scribes during this century, or which I came upon while examining the piles of modern manuscript Gaelic literature that have found their last resting-place on the shelves of the Royal Irish Academy." (iv)

The way Hyde makes reference to sources is casual and non-specific. It would be difficult for a reader to access his sources. Because we have such little insight, it is important to be alert to potential biases in the collecting and editing process.

If we can identify consistencies among the anthologized songs in terms of their depiction of love and lovers, and/or among songs which are excluded from the anthology, we will have reason to regard the very partial disclosure of sources with suspicion.

As I have already noted, part of Hyde’s project is to bring the reader into contact with language which has an ‘unbounded’ power to excite the Irish Muse. Perhaps part of the way he contrives this encounter is to control the kind of subject matter that will appear to the reader as that which occurs most naturally in the Irish language.

It is not very clear to me as to why a between-subject design is automatically necessary here

Not sure what the "g" stands for in this section.

I think this "51" is not supposed to be there.

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Abkürzung einführen!

Schwarzmeer-Einheits-Schiff??

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, oder?

Dieser Satz ist mir unverständlich und scheint mir grammatikalisch durcheinander.

Entweder ist mein Englisch zu beschränkt oder hier ist irgendwas nicht ganz korrekt

Diesen Satz, insbesondere den zweiten Teil, verstehe ich nicht.

"gig" im Sinne von "Auftritt"?

Firmen wie China, Russland, ...Deutschland und... Ist das Ernst gemeint??

??

Aufzählen!

Too many stuff's

I think what is meant is "cholinergic neurons in the basal forebrain", or "the cerebral cortex receives projections from cholinergic neurons", as we presume that acetylcholine is coming from cholinergic neurons.