procaryote

Thing is, you can run ipv4 only, dual stack or ipv6 only. Ipv6 only won't work. Dual stack has a larger attack surface and is complex. Ipv4 works but costs a relatively tiny bit of money so far.

Why would you not use ipv4?

Second system effect. It's way more complicated

Replicating even a simple ipv4 lan with mostly stable local addresses and some isp uplink is pretty complex, even assuming all the devices involved support ipv6, which they wont

It's much easier to run a dual stack with v4 for ease of use on the lan and v6 as an additional address that can change whenever and is only used to reach the wan

But the main reason you'd care would be if you can't get a public ipv4 address to NAT to. And if you can't get that, some of the internet breaks anyway.

Then imagine the security implications of trusting windows to serve just some selected files over FTP and never have any security hole that exposed other files or allowed RCE

If you know the type you need fewer checks in the jitted code, and you can optimise to native types.

If it helps python specifically, given that the types themselves are pretty dynamic, who knows. A python integer doesn't map well to a native integer etc. Python really isn't designed for performance, and retrofitting it is hard.

It sounds enough like real investing that it might make some more people put real money into crypto, while still being unregulated and vague enough that you can outright steal the money or take risks a regulated market wouldn't allow

Or you meant an argument for the person putting their money into it? No idea.

That's a separate probem that probably wont be solved by reducing the work week.

That said, ppp adjusted median houshold income has grown fairly steadily even in the US, even with growing inequality... so workers too have benefitted, just not as much as they could of the gains had been spread more evenly

The performance of python indicates otherwise. There are some performance critical libraries written in C or C++ but a lot of python is written in python.

Python in itself is poorly suited to ever become performant as it lacks the types required. I imagine that causes some issues for effective jit-ing too.

They had a chance to fix this when adding type annotations, but instead of making it "optional/gradual typing" they opted to make it "documentation or linting support", which is obviously the wrong choice, but there were cultural reasons

> there's no reason you shouldn't be paid the same for less time because your output is the same/better.

The reason is economic growth for the company / the country.

This in turn is a more subtle point than it seems at first glance. Not having economic growth isn't really a desirable option for a company, a country, or in (the long run) the people involved.

Give the low quality of microsoft's products, I am very ready to believe that even simple agents can do a better job.

You get to understand more of how the world works.

What's the point of exercise when we have machines that can do physical labor? It keeps you healthy.

If you don't use and train your brain, you'll be unhealthy and stupid.

Even if you were right about AI, if you plan on keeping humans around, you need them as educated as humanly possible.

AI has replaced students in the same way as cars and elevators have replaced exercise

You're free to do that, even if doing it isn't graded

The total time of their tasks or the micro-benchmark of ripgrep?

How do you make the world better without any useful skills?

Being nice is nice, but it doesn't cure cancer

Thinking radio, calculators, the internet etc will make teachers obsolete misses something fundamental.

Could people learn by themselves? – possibly.

Do they? – generally not.

Having agents changes nothing

Access to information isn't the same thing as competency or skill. Giving someone access to google does not make them educated. Have they met people?

You're giving them much more benefit of doubt than they deserve

The only place I've ever seen a trigraph is in malicious c code style content. It's a terrible idea for sure, but not a problem in pratice... to the point that gcc at least used to require an extra flag to turn them on

FOI is for administrative documents to increase transparency in government. Detailed 3D scans a museum does for research or preservation isn't an administrative document.

If you want a 3d scan of these statues, there's a lot of them around in scannable places like parks etc. If you just want to win, you're wasting everyone's time for no good reason.

If education doesn't matter, you've had the wrong education.

It sounds like they are ready to give up human readability of code for a mostly untested idea macros _might_ help LLMs?

It's certainly the weakest argument I have seen today

what would be a better repeatable measure of education?

Why enforce effort rather than outcome? Just have exams be without phones.

If someone manages to learn without doing the homework, or finds some way to learn better using an LLM, fine. The exam will show that.

Failing people who didn't learn anything during the course sounds like a desirable outcome

Perhaps let them take a practice exam early on, so they can realise they'll fail the real one unless they actually study?

Education isn't a zero sum game. It's highly possible for people to do worse on basic skills without that being compensated by new unknown skills.

Hoping they're smarter than the tests show is a bad strategy for fixing the issue

so your take on declining test scores is that it means people are learning more?

If it's every lesson, every weekday, they'll get used to it

It sounds like the title should be "the potential of audio AR", as nothing has really risen yet, and hasn't in the two years since the article was written

This is highly optional. You can lock phones up at the start of the school day or at the start of class