Plenty of people would naturally expect `if x in range(big_number, other_big_number)` to work efficiently rather than having to write the comparison logic (and modulo check, if a step is involved) explicitly. If the code has `if x in y:` where y is a duck-typed input, it's awkward to special-case that.
Who is making membership checks against trivially-sized collections in a hot loop?
The only other reasonable explanation would be that he has consumed so much LLM content that the machine has erased his voice and replaced it with its own.
Chris usually takes an educational angle, I don't think this is LLM-generated content at all it's just his style. I highly encourage watching some of his DefCon or BlackHat talks, they're fun!
‘The counters tell the story’ might be something they consider odd. But I’m not familiar with the author’s style so they could have had these tics pre-LLM or they picked up these tics from reading a lot of LLM content.
Yes, that's the point where I was like "wait a second" and started counting em dashes. A third alternative, perhaps the LLMs were trained hard on his prior work? :-)
Presumably there is an antialiasing low pass filter somewhere before JS gets to the data. I have a similar sample rate and it certainly didn't work at all for me.
reply