Brian_K_White
They didn't say no bug ever goes to any led light.
It might be true but it's also a pointless statement that doesn't impact the problem, because it won't happen. And "it won't happen" isn't some unsupported prediction that no one can say. The aggregate behaviour of humans is a known thing, and it's not productive to the actual problem to pretend otherwise. It's only productive an individual looking for an easy excuse to avoid dealing with the problem.
It's not the new calculator nor the new index.
The only thing it has in common with the earlier examples is that it's a new thing. Wow, what a deep insightful observation!
https://blog.kagi.com/education-should-not-be-held-for-ranso...
Some things you may get by looking longer, some things you just have to be shown, and only after being shown, maybe you can at least understand and re-use, but would never come up with from first principles and no hints or prior exposure.
How could I know that? There has already been essentially infinite normal-man-hours since people have started thinking, even when you remove all the people uninterested in doing anything but surviving. Today especially with the population in the billions and everyone having leisure time. And yet we still have not solved much of anything that we know is out there to be solved, and still only an exceptionally rare genius once in a blue moon develops something new.
If mere time was the same, we have already had it, so why aren't we immortal omnipotent energy beings? Why do we still have colds?
Working time alone is a productive strategy for many problems. A machine that can brute force all possible chess moves beats the most genius human player, yet isn't intelligent at all, or rather, requires no intelligense at all. That machine will produce the exact same results either fast or slow depending on how much hardware you give it, and in humans, the genius player produces their answer faster.
But that's no more meaningful than observing that humans often turn simple mechanical cranks, and electric motors do to, and concluding that there is no ultimately significant difference.
The billonaires suffered no laws, Holmes did, who was a nobody except for very briefly holding a few of others' billions.
Like that line in Barbie, ... actually not a life guard, my job is just "beach".
It's fine for cheap pans to exist because any user of one can see what it is and make an informed choice to use the junk one or the good one.
At the appropriate and necessary cost.
A less costly new engine design or less costly engine swap procedure that fails is worse than no airplane at all. If it's cheaper and fails, we don't want it. It wasn't cheaper, it was even worse than expensive.
It's not hyperbolic all or nothing. Sure infinite cost is just as useless as infinite failure, but there is no reason to talk about infinite.
At what cost? Some. At some cost.
It might be useful for your own memory since you can decide that you trust what was written. IE you trust that when it was written, you agreed at the time that it was an accurate summary, and later you only have to trust your earlier self.
But "My ai said that the site said ~essentially~ this on this date." is useless for anything else.
But it suggests an interesting idea. Maybe if we had some ai equivalent of trusted vetted accountable court reporters who write down notes and draw sketches in rooms where cameras aren't allowed.
That is purely second-hand reporting that we more or less trust, partly because there is usually more than one of them from competing venues reporting on the same event, partly because they are people with something to lose if they are unfaithful or even merely inept, partly because the facts are ultimately vettable with some effort for those who really need to.
There's no such ai yet. Even if one exists that could do the job, there is no consensus or basis for it, for everyone to recognize it as a trustworthy source of second hand reporting. But maybe if there were more than one and operated by different camps, they could grow to become recognized as a valid source of info.
Numbers prove or disprove it. Which neither of us has. The fact that everything you showed even fits in a little comment like that compared to the scope of all software actually proves what a joke it was to even try to present this as any sort of argument.
"why do you keep saying MIT?" Oh FFS really? MIT, or BSD, is perfectly understandable shorthand for any of the mit/bsd/x11/etc in a general discussion like this. They are all of a class. How do you know? Because no one has attempted to discuss any fine points here that would make any of those any different from any of the others. You have to go out of your way to say they are different, and then cannot say in what way that matters or changes anything. So why do you yet again pretend an insignificant detail in any way affects the thrust of the argument?
Go ahead and substitute "MIT" with "BSD" or any of the specific "various BSD licences". Ok now that you did that, what changed? The argument was valid or invalid before, and the opposite now?
Why it's better is a little complicated and maybe not all one-way.
Definitely there are a lot of difficulties inherent in the way the lcd type has to move the part for every layer and fight a lot of suction every time, damaging a film that needs to stay optically perfect, frothing up the resin with bubbles yet another source of optical defects.
Maybe the laser machines have their own problems but not having to move the part (or move it much less and in a different less violent way) and not having to physically abuse an optical part has to make some difference.
If you're fit to even be in this conversation then you have enough logic to know this, which makes the comment not merely in error but knowingly disingenuous.
What are the equivalent numbers for everything that was ever licenced GPL vs MIT? Neither of us knows but I defy you to even slightly attempt to hint that the world did not benefit from gpl code about a million times more than mit code as a direct result of their fundamental natures.
I could not care less about any refresh rate over 30.
You can care about it, but that just means it sounds like a differentiator to me, not something everyone should pay for just because you care about it.
You will have to somehow prove it if you would say that the panel and driver chip are all already ready to do 100+ hz for free by default, and are actually artificially limited, and that that artificial limitation doesn't come with some other advantage like battery life (allowing a smaller battery or less cost in some other way).
An execrable membrane keyboard machine with 1k of ram inspires you to somehow make a working DonkyKong.
The iphone can do anything but doesn't let the user do anything. It exists to sell you finished solutions to problems. You don't even get to choose the problems let alone the form the solution takes.
The 1k Sinclair can't do much, but doesn't impose any artificial limits or proscriptions either. It not only allows you do to anything you want but demands it. It offers practically no finished solutions.
No matter how limited the hardware, the options are actually infinite because you can do whatever you want with that hardware, and that open-endedness causes people to explore it and try to fill it.
If I'd had an iphone as a kid, maybe I'd still be the same kind of person and develop the same kinds of skills with the help of some other tools besides my iphone, but we'll never know. What happened was I had a 4k trs-80 that objectively sucked and yet absorbed 100% of my time, and none of that time was passive consumption.
What I would say, and perhaps what you actually mean, or if not then at least what you might now consider, is you shouldn't give anyone else the right to declare your sense of worth, including an employer.
and then
Somehow you missed: They did deal with it. The one they criticized did not.
An Apple that made little more than the AppleII and ran it's course would have been a perfectly fine thing.
We would all be far richer for having 20 different companies in place of the Apple we got.
Put another way: the "in mice" doesn't matter because they are studying alzheimers, not mice. the mice are just the lab equipment of the moment. I don't care what kind of glassware or computers they use either.
What is a sandwich?