TIOBE is meaningless - it is just search engine result numbers, which for many search engines are likely a wildly inaccurate estimate of how many results match in their index. Many of those matches will not be about the relevant language, and the numbers probably have very little correlation to who uses it (especially for languages that are single letter, include punctuation in the name, or are a common English word).

Modems also make noises when connected. However, the noise of them connecting is more distinctive because they go through a handshake where you can hear distinct tones, but then negotiate a higher baud rate involving modulation of many different frequencies, at which point to the human ear it is indistinguishable from white noise (a sort of loud hissing). If you pick up the phone while the modem is connected at a higher baud rate (post the handshake), you’ll hear the hissing, and then eventually you picking up the phone will have caused too many errors for the connection to be sustained (due to introducing noise on the line), causing both ends to hang up. You’ll then hear the normal tone you hear when the called party has hung up the line.

I believe it is what Americans call what might be called an Owners Corporation / Body Corporate / Apartment Owners Association / Management Company in other parts of the English-speaking world.

I think the most striking thing is that for outsiders (i.e. non repo members) the acceptance rates for gendered are lower by a large and significant amount compared to non-gendered, regardless of the gender on Google+.

The definition of gendered basically means including the name or photo. In other words, putting your name and/or photo as your GitHub username is significantly correlated with decreased chances of a PR being merged as an outsider.

I suspect this definition of gendered also correlates heavily with other forms of discrimination. For example, name or photo likely also reveals ethnicity or skin colour in many cases. So an alternative hypothesis is that there is racism at play in deciding which PRs people, on average, accept. This would be a significant confounding factor with gender if the gender split of Open Source contributors is different by skin colour or ethnicity (which is plausible if there are different gender roles in different nations, and obviously different percentages of skin colour / ethnicity in different nations).

To really prove this is a gender effect they could do an experiment: assign participants to submit PRs either as a gendered or non-gendered profile, and measure the results. If that is too hard, an alternative for future research might be to at least try harder to compensate for confounding effects.

I think (unless I misunderstood the paper), they only included people who had a Google+ profile with a gender specified in the study at all (this is from 2016 when Google were still trying to make Google+ a thing).

Update: It looks like quite a few stories are paraphrases (AI rewrites?) of CNN stories, so the site might just be an attempt at SEO, rather than psyops.

CNN seems to be contorting themselves to not say anything too negative about Israel’s far-right government, hence the bias coming through on other sites based on it.

The history of that site is very interesting, leading me to suspect some kind of psyops operation.

The domain name was registered on 2021-06-13, but until at least 2024-01-01 it was a rather basic Indonesian language news site, with no English content - https://web.archive.org/web/20231228131909/https://www.infoterkiniviral.com/.

The domain name was updated on 2024-03-22. Their sitemap has content going back to 2024-03-09. Old URLs that existed back in January now return 404 not found.

There seems to be no attribution (e.g. who owns the site). It is using Hostinger for DNS, with PrivacyProtect used for WHOIS privacy, and is hosted on GCP.

That said, I haven’t found evidence that the less controversial stories (which psyops likely add to lend credibility to any propaganda by blending it in with real news) are word-for-word copied from anywhere. This could mean they have invested in writing them by hand, or maybe they are AI generated as a paraphrase from another news source.

I’d bet there might be a whole series of them if they are taking this approach, but they seem to have tried to make them hard to link them together.

I think doing a good analysis of strategy here will depend on a lot of factors.

Firstly, before coming up with a strategy, it is good to have a clear idea of your goals / the strategic problem you are trying to solve. I see or could infer a few possible ones: you want to work in an environment where you don’t feel bullied, you want to ensure others aren’t bullied, you want to see bullies punished, to maintain positives in the company and want to enjoy those without the negatives of being bullied, or perhaps that you believe in the goals of the company or have some stake in it, and want it to succeed. Different goals might lead you to a different course of action.

Next, you would want to diagnose what’s really going on. Are there just a few bullies, in a company mostly full of professional people, or are the bullies the majority? Are senior leaders in on the bullying, or is it only lower level employees? Why do you think the bullies were hired in the first place - is it because bullying is considered okay in the company, or is it not considered okay but they slipped through? Why do you think the bullying hasn’t been addressed already? Is it because senior managers don’t know? Are the bullies friends / relatives of senior leadership? Are the bullies high performers that the company really would want to keep around, or do they get barely get anything done? Also, are the bullies even aware they are being bullies? Are they unaware they are being insensitive, and likely to change if made aware, or are they actively being malicious and well aware of the impact?

Next, consider the direction you want to take, and analyse the likely impact on your goals. You could find another job - how easy that is would depend what the job market looks like for your role, and how good the terms of your current job are. It wouldn’t achieve goals around making it better for others. You could try talking to the bullies if you think that they might just be unaware of the impact of their behaviour and that they might change. If that doesn’t work, you could try talking to a manager / HR member, perhaps either to arrange mediation, or for them to take action. You could also just try ignoring the bullying if it isn’t having much impact.

To choose from the many possible directions, it might help to think from the perspective of the company shareholders, senior leadership, and HR department. What would you do in their shoes if you learned of the bullying? If it is the majority of the company doing the bullying, then something like replacing all the bullying staff is going to be an instant non-starter. The best possible would be to slowly roll out training, policies, and new hiring practices to try to improve the culture over time. If it is a few people who, it now turns out, are the reason for high staff turnover and lower profits, then they might be quite happy to take action. Although probably not if the bullies are the senior leaders.

Ironically the bot summary missed the crucial point that Air Canada’s chatbot gave inaccurate information.

I think there is a [smear campaign against Adrian Zenz])https://www.wsj.com/articles/pro-beijing-online-campaign-targets-u-s-based-xinjiang-researcher-cybersecurity-firm-says-11659607252), more here.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/articles/2021/chinas-disappeared-uyghurs-what-satellite-images-reveal.html and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/24/china-imprisoning-uighurs-satellite-images-xinjiang are other sources based on what can be learned from satellite imagery. There are also interviews with escapees, e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2021/08/uyghur-genocide-china-us-immigrant/619806/ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2018/9/10/escape-from-xinjiang-muslim-uighurs-speak-of-china-persecution https://thewire.in/rights/china-uighurs-xinjiang-camps-human-rights.

Programming is the most automated career in history. Functions / subroutines allow one to just reference the function instead of repeating it. Grace Hopper wrote the first compiler in 1951; compilers, assemblers, and linkers automate creating machine code. Macros, higher level languages, garbage collectors, type checkers, linters, editors, IDEs, debuggers, code generators, build systems, CI systems, test suite runners, deployment and orchestration tools etc… all automate programming and programming-adjacent tasks, and this has been going on for at least 70 years.

Programming today would be very different if we still had to wire up ROM or something like that, and even if the entire world population worked as programmers without any automation, we still wouldn’t achieve as much as we do with the current programmer population + automation. So it is fair to say automation is widely used in software engineering, and greatly decreases the market for programmers relative to what it would take to achieve the same thing without automation. Programming is also far easier than if there was no automation.

However, there are more programmers than ever. It is because programming is getting easier, and automation decreases the cost of doing things and makes new things feasible. The world’s demand for software functionality constantly grows.

Now, LLMs are driving the next wave of automation to the world’s most automated profession. However, progress is still slow - without building massive very energy expensive models, outputs often need a lot of manual human-in-the-loop work; they are great as a typing assist to predict the next few tokens, and sometimes to spit out a common function that you might otherwise have been able to get from a library. They can often answer questions about code, quickly find things, and help you find the name of a function you know exists but can’t remember the exact name for. And they can do simple tasks that involve translating from well-specified natural language into code. But in practice, trying to use them for big complicated tasks is currently often slower than just doing it without LLM assistance.

LLMs might improve, but probably not so fast that it is a step change; it will be a continuation of the same trends that have been going for 70+ years. Programming will get easier, there will be more programmers (even if they aren’t called that) using tools including LLMs, and software will continue to get more advanced, as demand for more advanced features increases.

The statistics demonstrate, beyond all reasonable doubt, that journalists are more likely to be killed compared to the already high base rate for Palestinian civilians: https://lemmy.amxl.com/comment/752651 - targeted weapons on journalist vehicles just makes it more blatant. This is not going to look good for those involved if they ever face justice for targeting civilians.

Presumably the drones do either have pre-programmed flight paths in them, or are flown by radio that can be triangulated - and giving up that location information probably is equivalent to ‘snitching’.

I think alienating all the advertisers probably didn’t help much either.

Ukraine has an oligarch problem (with Putin at the head of it), not a Russia problem. Putin ultimately wants to exploit the resources of Ukraine unimpeded like he does in Russia - and he’s tried puppet governments, and the people fought back, so now he is trying force.

Ukraine killing Russian civilians (who are also victims of Putin’s greed) is not going to deter Putin. Putin cares about one person - himself - and everything else is only a means to enriching and protecting himself and his status. He only cares about Russian civilians to the extent that those civilians living is in his best interests.

So killing random Russian civilians is unlikely to achieve much except depriving some innocent family of some of its member. Targeting Putin and his property, oligarchs and generals is much more likely to make a real difference.

I think it would be a real shame, and would fragment the fediverse as a whole - some of Beehaw’s communities are some of the best on the Fediverse (and I really appreciate the work of the mods of communities on Beehaw), but the Fediverse / Lemmyverse is a lot bigger than just the Beehaw instance, and I really like being able to participate in communities from all over. Having to create accounts separately on lots of walled garden instances is probably not worth it, so I think it would make both Beehaw and the rest of the Fediverse weaker.

Overall I’d be sad about it, and discourage, but I’m sure the fediverse would live on despite it, in a weakened form.

Perhaps the real question is why would you consider doing that? It seems like a lose/lose for everyone. Would you be able to elaborate on what the exact problem you are trying to solve is? Perhaps the community could help you come up with a better solution.

I’d pick an irrational number, say pi, and ask for every decimal digit of it. Then, I have infinite time to walk around the world in explore mode (i.e. I can’t die, and hence don’t need to eat etc…, and am effectively an infinite energy source, and can interact with objects) while time is frozen. This effectively makes me a god, but only for one point in time, with the ability to create a discontinuity in the world state at that point. I’d travel around the whole world (even if it involved swimming oceans) and try to make it so that the infinite sum of each action I take while the world is frozen converges on a world that is in a much better state infinitesimally after the moment compared to infinitesimally before.

Games where I have perfect knowledge of the state of play, and where one player moves first, I don’t enjoy much. For each of these games, there provably exists a strategy where the first player that moves can only win or draw

That doesn’t seem quite correct for any game meeting those criteria (I’d also add that the game is deterministic - no true randomness in the game either, since that is distinct from state - otherwise the outcome could trivially depend on random events). There are two other possibilities for a deterministic game: that optimal gameplay by both players will always end in the second (or another player if more than two) winning, or that optimal gameplay by both players will result in a game that never ends (impossible for games with a finite number of states, and rule that the game ends in an outcome if the same state recurs too many times - like chess).

A trivial example of a (poor) game that would meets your criterion but where the first player loses under optimal strategy: Players take turns placing a counter anywhere in the play area from an infinite supply of counters. Players cannot skip a turn. If there are an even number of counters on the board after a player’s turn, the player who placed the counter can optionally declare victory and win. Not a game I’d play, but it does prove there exist deterministic open state games where one player moves first where the first player will not win or tie.

In a 3+ player deterministic open state game, the actions of a player who goes on to lose could impact which of the remaining players win (they are essentially just a different source of non-determinism).

I think it is correct to say that any two-player deterministic open-state game which can only end in a draw, win, or tie, for any fixed initial conditions, there exists a strategy for one of the two players that will ensure that one of the three outcomes occurs: the game continues forever, that player draws, or that player wins. That can be proved by contradiction: either one or more move in the strategy decision tree can be improved to make the player win, which contradicts the strategy not existing, or the other player can rely on the strategy not existing for the first player to devise a strategy, which also contradicts no strategy existing for either player.

I think all the numbers are for all of Palestine - the population, the number of journalist fatalities, and the number of total deaths (most would be in Gaza, but the IDF is apparently also continuing activities in the West Bank which are killing Palestinians and included in the total - see for example https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2023/11/alarming-urgent-situation-occupied-west-bank-including-east-jerusalem).

If I had separated out numbers, focusing on the Gaza subset would probably tell a similar story; it might remove some noise that could have masked a significant difference in proportions if the difference was more marginal. However, including the whole of Palestine the proportion difference was still extremely highly significant - there can be no doubt from the numbers that journalists in Palestine are more likely to be killed than any random citizen.

I can’t find a good source for how many journalists work in Palestine, but in other countries, it is about 0.1% of the population (I couldn’t imagine it would be higher in Gaza given the oppressive conditions).

That means there are probably about 5,428 journalists working in Palestine (based of 0.1% of 5,428,542, the best figure for Palestine’s population). 64 have been killed since October 7th, or ~1.2% of all Palestine’s journalists (under the estimate based off worldwide journalism figures). Of Palestine’s population, 19,968 have been killed since October 7th, or ~0.37% of the population.

Doing a two-sample Z-test for proportions on those proportions gives a Z-score of 25.43, which has a P-value of << 0.001 - in other words, if the probability of journalists being killed was the same as for the general Palestinian population, it is vanishingly unlikely we would see a difference in probabilities of being killed this extreme. This is very strong statistically significant evidence that journalists are more likely to have been killed in Palestine than members of the general Palestinian population.

The question then is why are journalists more likely to be killed? There could be an argument made that journalism is inherently a more risky occupation. However, the vast majority of journalists seem to have been killed at their home, not while filming military action or anything like that. There is a theoretical possibility journalists have stayed closer to the action and are less likely to have evacuated to another corner of Gaza since their job requires them to stay closer to the action. However, the other, probably more likely and much more disturbing possibility is that the Likud (Netanyahu) controlled IDF is intentionally targeting journalists (which is a serious war crime).