cowboylowrez
I know I know, why are we giving money to trump? Its because he's going to take it anyways so can't we at least apply some window dressing?
At this tier of small time company IT, I am hoping that AI will actually improve the quality of code, because people who write racey nolock code that occasionally "drops a few records" are probably hopefully not posting their code to forums or alternatively getting roasted to pieces if they do so its my hope they are only represented in training data as "what not to do."
I remember the ol "family computer", the kid isn't going to go hunt porn with their parents sitting in the same room, and giving kids these 24x7 smartphones, especially unsupervised, yeah I don't get it. Yes, obviously if a parent trusts their kid but it seems like the entire tech world is being coerced into unpaid babysitting commitments lol
I still offer the alternate theory that Bush Sr. was indeed a pause in the GOP's descent into the current realm of evil and contempt for the population of our country. Hell, I read trump doesn't even like his own voters and that rings so true haha
edit: I think you could provide an AI with a service or skill that asks "is this move legal" but given all the overhead for llms or whatever to call a "legal move" service external to its process, well then you aren't really searching the tree very efficiently lol.
However if you just let a neural network score boards and the neural network is in the same process well then I think thats the working solution for using neural networks in chess. The net does not need to score all boards either, simple value based heuristics can obviously provide a preliminary list of good boards (moves) at a certain depth or ply and then select the move that produces the board that the neural net scores highest. I kinda sorta think thats whats done today but as usual I could be full of it lol
sure optimizations based on stats, but the stats are the wildcard, in my experience query plans can change suddenly.
Queries are translated into plans according to statistics. However the transforms will be deterministic and should only change one valid plan to another. I could very easily see a neural network manipulate transforms the same way the current programming does, its just that the neural networks are by nature really nicely suitable because the "decisions" are based on training, and this training can be closed world type things like the ai assists that chess engines are now getting. Obviously ai still can't play chess but apparently its very good at ranking board positions just by developing that much statistical info because its training comes not from reading the web, but playing a gazzilian games against itself in a "closed" chess world of its own.
I'm thinking that the ai does "this legal transform of the query plan should be applied to this pattern of data (statistics, cardinality, etc)" simply because the ai encountered it in closed world training, much like the chess thing.
Just a theory tho feel free to correct!
With trump tho, it just seems worse. Course the only thing I have to go on is evidence and "walk like a duck-isms" but with Bush jr and before, it seemed like these guys at least appeared patrotic and they didn't look so malignantly treasonous and I think they put forth the idea that while they were conservative, at least the pretense was that they honored the office and the constitution. so since that is gone the progress toward national decline now seems to be a deliberate operation on behalf of people who are no longer interested in democracy. This is new to me.
fred sanford noises WE ALL GONNA DIE
I agree with this, I'm thinking more along the line of debate mistake. I make them, I always invite corrections and I think the willingness to speak on terms of your debate opponent smooths the debate process. Sometimes it does get a bit impractical, heh debating libertarians often involves learning whole new versions of english lol
Still I think you will be more successful if you put forward your caveat on definitions ahead of time, nothing is to be gained during a debate by preemptively declaring your victory, so if I were to suggest improvements to rhetoric, I'd examine my own use of "the fact is that" type things and make sure that what I describe during these uses are indeed facts agreed upon by the debate participants.
Like if I were a libertarian, instead of declaring taxation is theft, I would offer a "wouldn't you agree" and this way we debate participants share a goal of honing in to the fundamental disagreement at stake and I can tell you in my experiences it often comes down to a lack of shared values instead of facts in dispute.
it was a small load of text easily digested, and the word "sovereign" is right there in it very early on. Your argument would be better accepted if you tossed in that you disagree with the characterization and have an opinion what YOU think sovereign entities are. Declarations of fact should only be used when what you are declaring is indeed a fact.
>In practical terms, there is no such thing as a semi-sovereign entity.
According to the text you're replying to, this is also untrue. In the future, I would recommend something like "while the 10th amendment talks about states being sovereign entities, in practical terms the federal government has jurisdiction over some matters involving states" or something like that. Its fine to voice opinions, but declaring your opinions "fact", well good luck with that hehehe
"pretending" good one lol