If I were the band, I’d do the same.
I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc
Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.
3,913 karma · joined October 24, 2008
I would not want the potential fallout of the when the AI tool goes sideways. Or stupid requests. Etc
Let meta handle redirecting band questions to the proper account.
But the OS should be as lean as possible because the entire reason is to run other programs.
The life expectancy of a person who lives to 18 increases dramatically across the board.
You even see this today. If you live to 70, you can expect to live 14 to 17 more years. So to about 84 on the short side and 87 on the long side.
However, make it to 75, your life expectancy is 11 to 14 years. Which is 86 on the short side and 89 on the long side.
Basically, the longer you live, the longer you should live, but eventually the range collapses. And that's because people come in under the average all the time. Some people die at 71. And those people stop getting counted when determining life expectancy at 75.
And I didn't say it would be easy, just possible.
I think that's some of the disconnect for some people. They think that simply because a thing is possible, it should be easy.
But this is getting rather forest for the trees.
End point is: If you don't like who is making your software, make your own. Giving up is just letting them win.
Conservatives will come out to say that you can't force JK Rowling to be pro (or even neutral) on the trans issue.
Now, they'll also say that certain people shouldn't be allowed to create. Or at the very least create based on certain properties. Which is admittedly almost a "same result, different mechanism" issue.
But they will claim to allow the market decide (aka "go woke, go broke").
However, if you don't like the creator of Brave or Ladybird, and you don't believe Google or Mozilla can be trusted to make a browser that respects privacy, giving up is just ceding to those forces.
Like, make a browser. Make it with people who do share your values. That's exactly what Andreas King and the Brave people did. That's what DHH is doing.
If they're right about anything, the "anti-SJW/DEI/Woke/'politics'" groups are right in that you cannot demand creators share your values.
If you like Harry Potter, you have to deal with JK Rowling. There's no way around it. You have to reconcile that with your morals. You don't get to demand that she supports the groups you want her to support in order for you to enjoy her content guilt-free.
So your options are, don't use those browsers, or make your own. You have that ability.
And yes, you, singular you, cannot make all the software. But you can make something and you can find others with your values and eventually you can build a network and that network can build all the software. With values that you can support.
* I know I talk a lot about browsers, but that's just the example. This is applicable to everything.
I’m saying the formula is immaterial. It’s also about being able to produce at scale, market, and distribute.
Even if you could replicate the exact flavor, you’d still need to do it at scale and get it into stores and convince people to buy it.
As to “just make it yourself”, everyone can make a sandwich, Jersey Mike’s and several other sandwich shops exist successfully.
Even if they were to take the recipe and publish it for all to see, you would still need all of the other machinery that is Coca-Cola to make Coca-Cola.
And then you have issues of quality. Coca-Cola has certain standards, it's not a guarantee that everyone else will have those same standards. Like, people buy the expensive brand of milk despite all milk being the same. It's one ingredient. With quality standards given by the government. There is really no room for interpretation.
They write a specific type of software that is very forgiving of bad architecture. Hell, some games are very forgiving of slow software as well.
For example, since we're talking about Muratori, The Witness does not have any of the concerns something as banal as Word has. The Witness gets to run for a single user as the sole application, without regard for anything else, and doesn't persist anything notable to the system.
There are entire universes of bugs and issues you just never even have to know exist. Hell, even Call of Duty supports multiplayer, which the Witness does not have to do.
Not to mention, sometimes your choice is between good performance or good architecture. Yes, functions cost, abstractions cost, all of this stuff costs. But some applications don't have the luxury of being replaced every Christmas. Some applications never get to "feature complete", they are living entities.
You yourself say that allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation. Why should I be restricted from cheap use of a patent I could use to further innovation?
His second attempt, no matter how he made it, was made with the context of his earlier mistakes.
RAII doesn't lead to spaghetti code necessarily. If anything, "unity builds" would more encourage spaghetti as it's easier to reference anything else in your build.
It's also a little fluffy. It's basically the history of how the book Structured Programming came about, because it's that book that essentially caused Knuth to write an article that contained the quote.
A lot of it is fairly interesting but it also highlights a big problem I do have with Muratori. He generalizes from self. He didn't fully understand or appreciate the quote about premature optimization, so no one did. And even though he's been told what it actually means, and was probably pointed to the full quote, he would stick on his interpretation. It's likely someone he views as "higher", like Jon Blow, challenged him and then he took the time to actually look at it.
I still think in your scenario, we would not be able to prove that that is what actually happened as opposed to someone manipulating the inputs to the brain to make it think that's what happened. Or to change it completely.
Like that's the entire solipsistic problem. The brain is just sort of self-contained. Everything is essentially input. We are incapable of really knowing the experience of someone or something else. Or if what we perceive is what's actually happening. Because, as you note, the brain can be manipulated to act in ways counter to the manner it had been acting previously. We can induce sound and vision. If we were better at it and could keep the brain alive, we could full on do a brain in a vat.
And I agree that sort of proof is impossible to acquire. Like, there is no way to prove conclusively that anyone else is conscious. But that's why we instead treat it as an axiom instead. We basically say "We're not going to prove it, we're just going to accept it as true". And that's fine.
Mostly because it not being true is an existential horror no one wants to truly confront.
And even with all of the more absurd conjectures, basically any form of "Last Thursdayism" of which simulation theory falls under, it's quicker to just assume that it's not true and treat the world we perceive as real with real rules that can be discovered through observation, testing, and experimentation. Because that's the only way we've been able to make any progress.
So while I know I am conscious, I do not know that everything I experience aren't just impulses fed to my brain by some external force. And I can't prove it either way. I have no way to test whether or not I'm a brain in a jar because the very thing I would use to evaluate the evidence is the thing that is potentially being manipulated.
However, slapping a solipsist sees them abandoning their philosophy rather quickly.
But I agree with you. We can't prove it, but "other people are as real and conscious as I" is a reasonable assumption to make
He could be trying to protect his junk from the leopards, or taunting the leopards by jerking at them. So many options. The past was just as juvenile and perverse as modernity.
Zip is a known format, so library support is mature. It can contain a local file system. And no one is going to casually muck about in it, so you can trust the structure.
Or, to be more accurate, the distance at that speed.
Because, of course the machine which does not tire and is deliberately designed to be durable and exceed natural human tolerances are better than humans. Cranes can lift far more than the strongest man.
But I understand that historically, bipedal machines have had balancing issues. The number of slight adjustments needed are significant. And doing it while at that speed and also not tumbling over is an achievement.
JAR/WAR, iOS apps, and others