I was there few months ago and I found them to be quite good too, both in coverage (shops, bus/metro networks) and accuracy.
Obviously, not the apps I'm used to so & the language but otherwise, it was okay.
I heard similar complaints from friends that came to visit. But they were using the English version of the apps, which, when I tested, were indeed harder to use, but never a miss for me when I helped them. OTOH, I always find my destinations within the first three options when I search in Korean. So maybe it's subpar internationlization.
> They lack a lot of polish. [...] some interactions are janky
I see. I guess I wouldn't know. It's not janky for me, and I think that I am so used to it that when I need to use Google Maps, or any other, I feel a bit frustrated by the unfamiliar interface that I start wishing I could be using Kakao or Naver Maps instead.
I used both English and Hangul to search. Searching for general things like food was good, but if I was trying to find a specific address it was very difficult. Sometimes it would just return completely wrong garbage. One time I was trying to meet up with someone and only realized halfway that the destination was wrong because Naver decided to take me somewhere else despite me copying the exact address in Hangul.
Maybe more about my unfamiliarity with the Korean address format than anything else tbh.
Some things about Naver I kind of miss from Apple/Google maps, but international software in general feels much more user friendly and better UX than Korean software.
> I'm firmly convinced that these policies are only written to have plausible deniability when stuff with generated code gets inevitably submitted anyway.
Of course it is. And nobody said otherwise, because that is explicitly stated on the commit message:
[...] More broadly there is,
as yet, no broad consensus on the licensing implications of code
generators trained on inputs under a wide variety of licenses
And in the patch itself:
[...] With AI
content generators, the copyright and license status of the output is
ill-defined with no generally accepted, settled legal foundation.
What other commenters pointed out is that, beyond the legal issue, other problems also arise form the use of AI-generated code.
It’s like the seemingly-confusing gates passing through customs that say “nothing to declare” when you’ve already made your declarations. Walking through that gate is a conscious act that places culpability on you, so you can’t simply say “oh, I forgot” or something.
The thinking here is probably similar: if AI-generated code becomes poisonous and is detected in a project, the DCO could allow shedding liability onto the contributor that said it wasn’t AI-generated.
> Of course it is. And nobody said otherwise, because that is explicitly stated on the commit message
Don’t be ridiculous. The majority of people are in fact honest, and won’t submit such code; the major effect of the policy is to prevent those contributions.
Then you get plausible deniability for code submitted by villains, sure, but I’d like to hope that’s rare.
There are two sentences in this essay that I couldn't understand. Can someone help me?
1. "An essay is a cleaned up train of thought, in the same way dialogue is cleaned up conversation"
I thought dialogue and conversation were the same thing. What is the difference between them besides one being a cleaned up version of the other?
2. "If for some bizarre reason the number of jobs in a country were fixed, then immigrants really would be taking our jobs."
What does this even mean? Is it an exemple or an analogy? It sounds like at this point in the text there should be an analogy, but this sentence sounds like an example. So, which one is it?
Slots at Harvard may be limited but slots at excellent institutions of higher education are not. Seats at ball games are not. Medical residencies are only limited by fiat. That could be fixed if we wanted to. The problem is the artificial limit, not the people getting the limited placements.
What people fail to understand is that immigrants add to both the supply and demand side. An immigrant sitting in a stadium seat is taking a place that could have gone to someone else. But their presence also drives the capacity to build more seats. More demand for higher education results in more capacity for higher education.
Even construction work in Europe is limited. People from Eastern Europe are undercutting German tradespeople and frankly deliver inferior work.
You could hire a German craftsman with the quality of work that was present 30 years ago and the work would last for 30 years. But who is embarking on learning a trade only to be replaced by Poles, Romanians or (in the future) Ukrainians, who will then replace Poles and Romanians once Ukraine is in the EU?
Dialogue and conversation are not the same thing, though they’re related, just in the same way that stress and anxiety are related but not the same. The task of reading comprehension involves being able to track important distinctions between synonyms.
The second is a counterfactual, and it is correctly deployed to help show the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. Graham is saying that a good liar presents pleasing and valid but unsound arguments, or rather sophistry.
I think your confusion here is from reading comprehension problems.
None of them worked. It would be good if the field already had an example filled in with the expected format, or maybe a better hint in the error message indicating why the file was not loaded. Was it my URL or another internal problem?
Still, it is a very interesting demo, and just like airstrike suggested (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41096570), now that the main engine is in place, more filters would be make this even more interesting. Well done.
I remember there was one level of Notpr0n¹ that required looking for an ICQ UIN. I guess new players won't be able to pass it without looking for the answer somewhere else.
I know it's off topic, but I find it interesting how this sentence was so hard for me to understand.
I struggled for many seconds but couldn't go beyond "was ever" because it felt like there was some mistake, like a word was missing here or there.
In the first pass, my mind decided that "state" was a verb, and, therefore, there should be a subject appearing before it.
But I only found "any", instead of "anybody" or "anyone".
Then there is "was ever in be" which, by itself, is a weird construction.
It does makes sense in the sentence, because it is "[the] state that Gentoo was ever in" + "be reflected upon".
But since I was (unconsciously) dividing the sentence in smaller parts trying to identify the subject, the predicate, the verb, the object, or whatever would make sense for me,
cutting the sentence like that only confused me even more.
I kept going back and forth trying to imagine which word was missing,
and only after pushing through until the quotation, the whole sentence finally made sense.
Although I can't think of any example right now,
I know that it is common to use sentences with structure similar to this one,
and I see them almost daily, probably multiple times a day.
However, as a non-native speaker, this one was an actual struggle,
and I feel so good for having overcome it that I am willing comment on it.
For closure, if I was the one writing this sentence, I would probably use the active voice with an indefinite pronoun, which is also probably what my mind was expecting:
Only on HN would anyone reflect upon any state that Gentoo was ever in as "just worked like a breeze".
And I ask: were there native speakers that also couldn't understand it in a single reading?
Native English speaker here. The sentence was definitely missing a word. I read it multiple times before I got it too. Your rewrite was easier to understand.
[only on HN] could [any state [that Gentoo was ever in]] be [reflected upon [as "just worked like a breeze"] unironically]_,_ and [I] mean [that] [in a fond, loving way]
Sigh. I wonder how much worse can these South Korean "security applications" get.
For instance, AhnLab's website¹ doesn't even list Ahnlab Safe Transaction in their products.
Removing the "mode=screensaver" parameter from the URL:
>ertdfgcvb
>Studio for design and code based in Lugano, Switzerland.
>Specialized in procedural graphic design for screen and print; research and development, prototyping and implementation of interactive installations for exhibitions, stages and events.
What made you think of them as bad? Could you be more specific? I use them almost daily and I find them very good.