lad

I think, colour is electron spin in this analogy. But I also can’t wrap my head around this

But it does not necessarily suggest that bots of the kind that post on social media have reduced their activity, or that there has been any meaningful result in the amount of misinformation or general posts from such accounts. While some users have reported that they are seeing less of those posts and accounts, that is not necessarily broadly true and may have nothing to do with the attacks on Yandex.

That is because Cloudflare’s “bot” data measures traffic from non-human, automated sources in general. And those kinds of bots can be used for all purposes, both good and bad.

As such, those widely shared charts do not in themselves suggest that there will be any less activity from automated systems that post on social media. And there is nothing necessarily to suggest that the attacks have had any impact in that way at all.

Users report less malicious bot activity, but you know, there’s no evidence of less malicious bot activity, because non-malicious bots exist, you see.

What a waste of time the article is

Why are you linking Reddit post instead of original article?

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/russia-bots-offline-facebook-instagram-x-yandex-b3065614.html

Yeah, the visualisation is great, that is for sure

It is only clear if you already have a model of how labels work in Python and while it is understandable to me now, I wouldn’t say this is anything I would expect

Then again, shadowing variables is allowed in other languages and is also a source of confusion and mistakes at times

I don’t think mutability is wrong as a concept, albeit I enjoyed learning and toying with Haskell, but I really think these functions in Python should have been two sets of operations, one set to do what a += b does and one set to do what a = a + b does.

I’ve been doing C++ for quite some time and amount of implicit things that happen magically and not everyone get them right and this leads to bugs and confusion had really grown on me with time, and I feel like this is the same pattern here, where we get implicit magic instead of being clear with intentions and results

I feel that things like this lead people to say something along the lines of ‘mutability was a mistake’

I’m only half serious, but this is really surprising without Python background

That was what I prefer to read instead, but fine

Edit: I did watch it, they don’t even tell, because it was in the previous disclosure, so I now need to find and watch that one

Edit2: and from reading https://gpg.fail/ with original vulnerability descriptions I can’t understand how they did the trick with ISO, is the ISO signed as if it were plaintext and allowed truncated lines? If so, this does look pretty bad both on implementation side and on user side, imo

Besides, afaik, they only decided it’s a new species after an extensive genetic test, so the fact that locals called it something doesn’t mean that even locals knew it was different from similar cats. It feels more like naming a new cat species ‘cat’ in local language