akoboldfrying
If prompting an AI could exploit this for less than $500 in token spend, then you should immediately do so, since if you don't, in a few minutes' time someone else will.
I'm so tired of people reaching for the emotional impact of the word "violence" in contexts that are far removed from its actual meaning -- and this context is about the furthest removed I've seen to date.
> If we cannot hear and feel coordinated human time, we cannot learn the forms of felt life that make mutual recognition possible.
I actually laughed out loud.
Remember folks, "punching in" is Okay. Gridifying is Not Okay. Because ________, obviously.
They're fiscally conservative values, as you likely already know. Social and fiscal conservatism are correlated, as you likely also already know.
In order for you to make this statement, you had to take a word ("conservative") that can be interpreted in one of two well-known ways ("social conservative", "fiscal conservative"), and pretend that when I used that word, I must have meant the way that doesn't make sense, instead of the way that obviously does.
It explicitly cares about people who identify as traditional Germans, who in their own eyes are "the normal people".
On the economic side, Gemini tells me that they favour deregulation, smaller government, and reducing bureaucracy for small and medium-sized enterprises (Mittelstand). They also want to increase family support payments to incentivise having children. These are all economic policies that make sense to conservative-minded "normal people".
The only way that it hasn't made mathematics better is in the sense of human mathematicians' career prospects -- and in this respect, it is identical to other forms of automation that the world, and especially computer programmers like us, have participated in in the past without complaint.
Do you mean stack-based source code languages like Forth or PostScript, or directly writing machine instructions for a stack-based ISA/VM like the JVM?
For this 2-category case, the double-headed stack is strictly better than maintaining 2 separate half-size stacks, since it permits every sequence of allocations and deallocations that the latter permits, while there are sequences that it permits that the latter does not permit (namely, any sequence in which more than half the memory is temporarily needed by one of the categories, and the other category is temporarily not using it).
The probability that I think you're talking about here is not actually relevant, given that the trial is already underway. Basically, the "potential advance" event has already happened. (Similarly, the probability of getting shot by an arrow is not relevant once the arrow's already poking out of your body.)
Given the trial is already underway, the probability that matters is the fraction of treatment candidates at the phase you are considering that make it all the way through; for phase 3 trials, this is 58-65% [0], which is actually pretty good. Of course, rates for earlier phases are much worse because there's attrition at each phase.
0: https://patentpc.com/blog/clinical-trial-success-rates-how-m...
Architecture, in the sense of applying/enforcing organising principles like modularity and levels of abstraction, is something we currently do largely to manage complexity -- so that we can fit as much of the system into our limited brains as we can. For a large enough system, this is necessary in order to work on it efficiently. But if you can "keep the whole thing in your head" without using these "crutches", then there's actually no need for them. They become overhead that can be done away with. We do this already for sufficiently small things -- no one plans a software architecture for a "Hello world" script.
It's possible that future (maybe even current?) AIs will be able to "keep the whole codebase in their heads" just fine, in which case the need for architecture goes away.
Though if, as the prosecution claim, she really did take out life insurance on him multiple times, for millions of dollars, and then remove him as a beneficiary -- that gun is pretty smoking.
Their "Our Mission" page refers only to the perfectly vague "our community", never once describing what that is. Nor does their landing page. Their "Our History" page says that the organisation started out to support women in the tech industry, but then describes several name changes, eventually dropping all use of the words "woman" or "women" and switching to the user of "individuals" without explanation or elaboration. It reads like a perfectly choreographed PR "product" designed to maximise deniability of... something. But what?
This is not a counterargument to my claim that "#1 on HN" status implies that many people are surprised by this.
> It just means you don't pay attention to Rust development
Correct, I don't. I never said that I did.
> How on earth was this not found before this???
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/164250#issuecomment...
> Assigning P-high
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/164250#issuecomment...
In general I agree with fg137's assessment of soundness bugs as being inherently high-impact, i.e., serious:
> The Rust community is well aware that such bugs exist, will be found, and address them just like other high impact bugs.
ETA: Downvoters, I salute you. Without your selfless courage, the forces of light humour would surely prevail.
I guess you're saying that this holds in "realistic" computational models? Sorting in the decision tree model is famously \Omega(n log n)-time.
What do you use to access your bank account online? I use my laptop, or my phone.
Until the government forbids writing programs by hand, writing programs by hand will remain a satisfying hobby. The only thing that's changing is how much other people appreciate the skill and effort you put into a given program.
Being replaced by a machine is different -- but still, not in a way that I can authoritatively say ought not to happen. If you could get your shirt made by a woman, or the same shirt made by a machine that costs 5% of what it would cost to pay the woman, you will pick the machine 99% of the time. Almost anyone would.
Being replaced by other people, or by a machine, is a very sad thing for the person being replaced. But I can't persuade myself that all by itself it is morally wrong in any sense.