Yeah it's a strange assumption, as this was taught in basic data structures class years ago and any language can implement any data structure, technically speaking. C especially is a weird assumption because lots of foundational software is written in C including hash tables.
> - Dots have a cheesy name, but they remind me of a more polished version of Cursor Projects, which I just started using this week. You talk to a single agent who serves as orchestrator and organizer, and spins up cloud agents as needed to do research and implementation tasks. So you can just dump stuff into the thread without worrying about interrupting ongoing work. Works great.
I don't get it, I could already do this right? I have lots of agents working and I just dump stuff in and they continue working with subagents, not sure why they need a separate thing for the same idea.
Subscriptions are still subsidized over API, so just like Uber I'll continue to milk them until I can't anymore (Uber back in the 2010s was incredible, you could get damn near anywhere for less than 5 bucks or so).
> In a more generic context we can call it all "law", but for specifically talking about a ruling not being in accord with the law, that's not the definition being used.
Well that's the definition I'm using so that's where we disagree it seems.
I see, I guess I'm using "understanding" in the more literal sense of being able to put enough context together in your mind to type the characters on screen, not necessarily understand enough to know how it affects every other part of the codebase.
Probably because most of that software is garbage then. While there are some people who may do that, most find the convenience of not carrying around loose change as a benefit.
Sorry, your idea of my background is incorrect. I also studied art history in college along with CS so you don't really know anything about me (or rather, maybe the college I went had CS people want to go to FAANG but that wasn't everyone's or mine and my art history clasmates did not have such an ambition anyway). Regardless my point was that art may have had technical skill but technical skill alone is not sufficient to create good art. There have been many periods in history where art technically has so-called regressed at least by the standards of technical skill maximalists which you see online these days, but again art was never about technical skill primarily. So fret not, regardless of how well a bot paints a picture it doesn't mean your or my art is invalid or pointless although I can understand your existential crisis.
Both of these comments have an inaccurate view of India in either direction, too romanticized or too doomerized. In reality it's just another country with people trying to do what's best for themselves and their families.
When you have buggy software like Claude Code where they literally had to buy the company that made the software and then machine translate it to Rust just to make it fast enough, it's not "a complete waste of time." Somehow people can turn even CLIs into unoptimized garbage.
Indeed. Maybe people down voting me don't like to admit it but when models train on the entirety of human input you can assume they'd be better than the average human.
There is more software to be written than there were programmers so lots of people do indeed want more software, for example small tools and one off projects that aren't worthwhile to make pre LLM.
No they couldn't. You can't create software you don't understand because you wouldn't even know what to type into the IDE in the first place. I don't understand claims like these, how exactly are people especially individuals producing more code than they could understand? Even at a huge corporation one might not understand all the code but surely they understand the part they're modifying because otherwise they wouldnt know how to modify it.
A ruling being binding is the law, it literally becomes the law regardless of what you or I believe it to be. Maybe you and I just have different definitions of what is law. To me, it is law today if it is ruled on and can be enforced regardless of whatever happens to it in the future.
If being the operative word. Because we cannot tell the future we cannot operate on the assumption that it is wrong now. And I meant by society's collective knowledge so even if some judges dissent or make bad rulings, the majority agreed and it is majority agreement, not unanimous agreement, upon which society operates.