The best version is of course Dick Pick, creator of the Pick operating system (not joking).
14,153 karma · joined November 28, 2014
Mary packed the binoculars in chapter 3, therefore she may use them on the train in chapter 6.
These two have very distinct failure modes. The failure mechanisms for solid state electronics are much more similar to those for static equipment (corrosion, thermal fatigue, creep, ...)
This does not extrapolate to a dark forest scenario.
It's not a cool concept to write scifi books about, but it may still be the reality we live in.
The most likely situation (by many orders of magnitude) is that the only practical way of getting to another star system, even in the far far future, is a generation ship travelling 50+ years one way with a significant risk of people dying from organ failure or cancer along the route. This would represent a 1000x speed improvement over current tech and is only a factor of 10x slower than lightspeed.
It is entirely unfeasible for any company or even government to spend money on such a project. Even if the ground on the other planet is strewn with diamonds and gold and the elixir of eternal life, you are looking at ~200 years before any ROI can be realised.
But even so people don't say that we don't understand how dice work.
Saying that we don't understand how LLMs work is exactly like saying we don't understand how dice, or tires, or golf ball shots work. Or like the old myth that we don't understand how bumblebees fly.
The cause was found to be drivers with 2WD losing a little traction early in their drove and subsequently slowing down, while drivers with 4WD just kept driving like normal until they were suddenly off the road.
Another statistic is that intoxicated or otherwise impaired drivers cause more than half of all fatalities. So making a solution with machine learning and cameras that could retrofit into any existing car and just deny starting the car for such drivers, and having insurance companies cut premiums for having such gadgets installed, would be much more effective than any form of self driving or similar.
https://mb.cision.com/wpyfs/00/00/00/00/00/3E/5A/A2/wkr0011....
Even if someone comes up with a construction that does not require any forcing, it is going to be some extremely weird initial conditions that you will never be able to even approximate in reality unless you can move all the individual molecules of a fluid around and set their initial velocities from a far distance.
No. Just no.
This is 100% wrong and reads like copy paste of AI slop.
Any simulation which uses sub-grid scale models is already solving a different PDE than the actual Navier-Stokes considered in the Millenium problem, and that PDE is guaranteed to have different properties. Full stop.
And to claim this is somehow connected to AMR methods is an example of the kind of pseudoscientific statement Wolfgang Pauli would have called "not even wrong".
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
Nobody who actually works in fluid dynamics on any sort of application gives a hoot about the N-S millenium problem. Many do not even know what it is. There is no practical effect of this proof on how we do fluid mechanics.
As a concrete example, such a proof could be less than a page with very specific initial and boundary conditions and inserting them into the equations to get something that goes to infinity when time goes to some finite value.
This would resolve the Millenium problem but not make humanity any smarter.
If you write 2 additional disks per year, this is a $500 initial investment plus $20 per year. Compared to Google's "AI Plus" plan you break even in year 5, assuming Google keeps pricing flat.
Of course you don't get any cloud access or similar.
If the company already has a developer team and the software is an expensive domain-specific CRUD app for internal use without significant compliance or risk factors - sure, go DIY.
If the company does not employ any devs, or if the core logic of the software is a business secret of the vendor, or it is customer facing, or there are significant compliance / risk factors - you are better off paying for it.
Unless the cost is astronomical, or the company is motivated also by anger at rent-seeking MBA f*ckers at the vendor.
I guess the point of GP (and of Jane Austen) is that people never actually universally agree on anything. And when they superficially do, there is actually a large undercurrent of disagreement.
Another fun quote apropos here would be "I love standards, there are so many to choose from"
A cursory google still seems to indicate people are using these things to learn how a hypothetical QC could be used in practice, rather than actually doing stuff in production or anything close to it.
Sure, professional bowlers use specialised shoes. Professional footballers and professional runners and cyclists and golfers and tennis players and skateboarders and ... do as well. But if you do any one of these activities at a low enough frequency and/or level that you're not buying your own specialised shoes, whatever sneakers you have will do just fine.
Amazon seems to have done the math and found that it makes sense to give a $20 discount on a $180 device if it lets them display very unobtrusive ads on the lockscreen. So I don't think you are correct.