People spent considerable amount of effort developing systems that separate contents from styles (latex, html/css, etc). And with Python people think it’s a good idea to encode contents as styles…
616 karma · joined May 31, 2018
In the original Chinese language, a "word" mostly consists of a single character. Interestingly, many of the compound words commonly seen in modern Chinese were in fact coined by the Japanese scholars during their attempts to translate western writings around the 19th century and were later "imported" back into Chinese language. Interestingly, the two examples in the article, "art" (美术) and "science" (科学) are both of Japanese origin, though one can still tell whoever coined the terms chose the individual characters due to their meaning being relevant to the concepts the words are describing.
If they already know the answer then it’s probably more efficient if they write it themselves rather than having AI produce a potentially difficult to verify answer and try to verify it.
If you can tell if a solution is correct or not --- well, then you don't need to have AI write it for you.
I think AI programming can only work when the industry begin to treat "almost working" systems backed by human customer service as acceptable.
I feel this is only the case because the ecosystem keeps receiving useful/low-entropy energy inputs from the Sun.
I'd say a better expression would be "we don't know yet whether ...", e.g.: "we don't know yet whether Covid is airborne".
I am not sure about that. If someone claims that you had stole something from a store, which you know you didn't, responding with something like "where is your evidence/you have no evidence" sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
1. the facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true 2. the information that is used in court to try to prove something
I was talking about sense 1, you were talking about sense 2.
I think the article is also about sense 1 of the word "evidence".
[1]: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...
The equivalent statement is "extraordinary evidence doesn't necessarily imply extraordinary claims".
Scientific evidence ought to meet the standard. If someone produces a video showing Bob shot Alice (let's assume faking the video is technically impossible), that would also constitute "true evidence". In that sense, I wouldn't consider witness' testimonies "true evidence".
Evidence for untrue things is still evidence, if it is verifiable. However, there is such thing as "no evidence". Crazy Carl's claim by itself would not be verifiable, therefore it is not evidence.
One can select a cell inside a table-like range and click "Format as a Table" to have Excel automatically infer the range of the table (including the headers) and enhance it with database-like features. One can then refer to columns in formulas using references like so: `=[@[first column]] + [@second_column]`. Modifying the formula in one cell will also update all the cells in the same columns. The table object becomes accessible using labels (e.g. `Table1`)
Very useful!