Did you find a word that wasn't accepted you thought should be?
I do have another version where it accepts ANY word but I found it quite unsatisfying when I survived by randomly spamming combinations and finding a really obscure word.
So am currently running it against a 20,000 word wordlist instead of my larger 300,000 wordlist
I've built a some word games over the years (e.g., wordwhile.com, omiword.com), and one thing I've discovered is that players find it very unsatisfying when they enter a real, valid word and the game rejects it. I imagine that the timer would amplify that sense of unfairness.
Granted, there are also people who get annoyed when the game seems too accepting of unusual words, but if you can point them to a valid dictionary definition for that oddball word, they usually accept it without argument.
I'm one of those people who get annoyed if it's too loose. But I can just impose that restriction on myself and look down on people who rely on obscure words.
Did you find a word that wasn't accepted you thought should be?
EARLS was not accepted, and I had already decided not to try REALS. (is there a rule against plurals?) what it was looking for was LASER which has a more tenuous claim on being a word than those two.
In 95 localization was scarce. Also, the partial "inst" would have matched "install" translated to several languages (about 15 by my quick count, could be more).
Is that actually true today? When I was doing EDI stuff ~20 years ago, it was mostly done using FTP, with some forward-thinking orgs moving to SFTP or (HTTPS-based) AS2.
I see that Wikipedia claims that "X.400 is quite widely implemented[citation needed], especially for EDI services", and that might once have been the case - but I doubt it was particularly widespread even at the time that article was first written. It's worth noting that that [citation needed] tag dates from October 2008!
In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile. If you are in the back seat when this happens, you are most certainly a danger to those in the front seats.
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
> In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
That begs the question by assuming that a belief system must be religious. Much of philosophy is about building a belief system that doesn’t depend on a religion at all.
For starters, “treat others well because everyone deserves our empathy” is completely compatible with atheism.
In the incident case, it's a post-mortem on the incident. The incident itself is (hopefully) resolved and can now be dissected to learn about what went wrong and how things can improve in the future.
That's what a post-mortem implies to me in the tech industry. A thing happened, it's over now, here are the lessons we learned to take into the future.
If you read the article, way down at the end he pulls it around. He means it's dead as a serious os that vendors can ship. It'll live on for hobbyists but you better be prepared for a bumpy ride as the YOLO crew hits send on increasingly larger amounts of stuff before its ready and continue to act unprofessionally (my paraphrase, but I believe I captured it).
Wouldn't the obvious solution to this problem to stop using agents that don't respect your usage limits instead of trying to build sketchy containers around misbehaving software?
Yeah I don’t understand this problem, who uses so many agents at the same time in the first place?
And if this is really a problem, why not funnel your AI agents through a proxy server which they all support instead of this hacky approach? It would be super easy to build a proxy server that keeps track of costs per day/session and just returns errors once you hit a limit.
The downside to doing this is that you'll sound like an LLM. LLM-generated text is very obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension and once detected will cause some people to summarily dismiss the sender as a bot.
This is more than acceptable if it allows you to confidently send of an email in less than a minute that would otherwise take you 30 minutes of agony to write and still not be confident about.
Also, these aren't cold calls. The recipients aren't critical about how "botty" the email sounds.
I tried "show me Portugal" and it showed me Madeira, which is an island that is indeed part of Portugal, but I was expecting it to go for the mainland.
Repeating the prompt alternates between Madeira and Açores which is again, technically correct, but in this case not the best kind of correct.
