backgroundcow

Exact same problem. It has been there for several years. Incognito mode is also a workaround. Do you know exactly which cookie it is? Maybe we can code a Firefox extension to remove it.

I completely agree with the general assessment, but then there are always pesky exceptions. In this case the list entered a JavaScript frontend from the yaml header of machine generated content pages for the website framework Hugo. And, of course, after finding the bug, it is clear that things could have been done differently and the issue easily avoided, but I also don't think this was a completely unreasonable design. Since Hugo actually supports JSON headers (not just via the yaml parser, but thanks for that tip!), that was a quick fix. But I'm also somewhat amazed that it was possible for the strung-together fairly standard set of Python libraries (primarily pyyaml) to not get the strings properly quoted.

Just the other day I had a list show up as ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", false, "g", "h", "i"].

The issue was that, without me being overly aware of it, the data was going through a data -> yaml -> data step.

Yes, the data -> yaml filter was broken for not putting general strings in quotes. But IMO the yaml design invites these odd "rare" bugs.

I used to like yaml, but was happy to see Toml taking the niche of human-readable-JSON, but felt the format for nested key-value was a weird choice. However, I've always felt we could just have extended JSON a bit (allow line breaks, comments, if the outermost data type is an object, the curly brackets may be omitted).

The problem with this is that it would then mean only those with rights to huge amounts of non-fair-use data becomes the only ones who can build AI models. The big rights holder music organizations, big publishers, governments, and rich people capable of paying for content libraries, would be the only ones with this technology.

I guess they failed the captcha

Time travel as a sudden jump seems one of the least plausible implementations, since we have no idea how to do such jumps even in just space or forward in time; and allowing for it would break a lot of physics.

More plausible alternatives include a space-time bridge, meaning both sides can follow Earth's reference frame; or the Primer-type where one can reverse time in an isolated box in a way where you can only travel backwards along the Box' trajectory and you have to wait inside that box for some time while you move backwards in time along that trajectory.

I think you have pinpointed the core issue.

Right-wing republican policies and ideas lends themselves to simple (but often wrong) models of explanation; "it is the fault of the immigrants; the poor; abortion is always immoral", etc. You get candidates that radiate confident leadership spewing simple talking points they believe in.

Left-wing, especially progressive, ideas are often rooted in insight into the incomplete understanding we have of the underlying complexities. People who navigate these ideas won't be as confident: "the cause is a bit of this and a bit of that; we don't really know, but research points at" etc. To confidently sell policies based on these ideas to voters requires a level of cognitive dissonance, and also opens for criticism on being indecisive.

How can we package left-wing ideas in a way that attracts voters who are swayed by simple ideas presented with absolut confidence?

My theory is that all this is the fault of the cookie law. Before that, the design philosophy was that you could not break the flow of a visitor by pop-ups etc., because they would go somewhere else before even looking at your content.

When all the big websites suddenly implemented increasingly annoying cooking consent dialogs, the flow was already broken everywhere. And so now the floodgates had opened for all kinds "subscribe to our newsletter", "get a welcome 10% rebate" etc., because users no longer has the expectation of an unbroken flow.

And, my god was that law stupid. What we needed was carefully balanced non-negotiable limits on what websites were allowed to do in terms of tracking users; what we got was every website implementing a site-dependent UI for functionality already present in every web browser ("turn off cookies"). The rules got different when GDPR arrived later, both for the better and for the worse. But the flow-breaking pop-ups we will probably never get rid of now that the public has learned to live with them.

End of rant.

Non-religious but likes plot analysis.

An important factor here is free will. Without free will, one may easily have a perfect utopia of the kind you think an omnipotent God should be able to achieve. But it would be a meaningless utopia; like a kid playing with toy figurines, just deciding everything we say and do.

God doesn't want that, and thus self-impose a limit on the omnipotence to not interfere with our free will. We are children that need to be taught, rather than marionetted to "save us" from the negative urges of free will.

Here, the (self-)sacrifice of Jesus enters. It is not about God using Jesus to fulfill some perverse quota of pain and suffering that God has decided is due before we are allowed into heaven. It is more about what humanity must experience for the lesson that makes heaven remotely possible as a concept. Only through pain and suffering will we come to understand how our actions affect the world and those around us. Jesus takes (some of) the pain and suffering "in our place" with the aim that the message will resonate with people throughout the ages to teach us about love and understanding, making the concept of a heaven possible despite our nature as (non-brainwashed) beings of free will.

In reality, even after 2000+ years, we still seem pretty far off the mark. Maybe the lesson didn't take the way it was intended; free will is a fickle thing. Or maybe God is playing an even longer game.

Even knowing the "correct answer" to this riddle for as along as I remember, I don't think it is right. For someone looking for how to handle this in an interview, I'd go with this:

I will fetch a friend or colleague to look at the bulb as I test the switches because:

• It is by far the most obvious solution that literally everyone faced with this problem actually would use. It is easy to understand and will be easy to explain to others (if you, e.g. need to present or document what you did).

• It is also a better solution: it is by far more robust against a large number of failure modes: e.g., if it turns out you are testing the wrong switch, the bulb is broken, more than one switch turn on the light, etc.

• It scales better: the same solution trivially extends to N number of lightbulbs controlled by M number of switches; and at large N it will save time not having to reach each bulb.

• It gives the opportunity to interact positively with a friend/coworker. Helping each other out with small necessary tasks builds team cohesion and work environment, and thus lowers the barrier for further collaboration, making us a more effective team in the longer run.

It will be placed in a default folder under a default name until you rename it / and or move it somewhere else.

What a nightmare.

For this one aspect, compared to a program that implements autorecovery, there is barely any practical difference. Autorecovery has to imply some kind of autosave, just behind your back in some program-specific "hidden" default folder.

Maybe you really like the "old-school" document GUI with no recovery, where you train your muscle memory to, e.g., ctrl+s every minute; and when something crashes, that's the point you go back to. But this is a punishing workflow for beginners.

And this is not "in theory". I've countless times seen real, smart, computer-literal, people lose significant amounts of work precisely this way to software implementating this paradigm.

I don't want some program choosing when and where to save something for me, because it is extra work finding all these garbage files I didn't ask for.

I realize the tone of this conversation may make it sound as if I want to force this on you all the way down to, what can it be - vim? I'm mostly picturing LibreOffice, Inkskape, etc., software that to some degree try to appeal as "desktop software" to fairly normal users. I think in these cases the "you are editing the doc itself"-paradigm would be vastly more friendly to new users.