2
points
ergonaught
Joined 3,051 karma
- ergonaughtIt’s the default ChatGPT.
- Just an example of a broken behavior from ChatGPT Thinking that has wrecked some of my work for several hours. Their Support process says “no policy violation” and that’s that.
Perhaps a demonstration will produce a different result.
- > Self-hosting a database sounds terrifying.
Is this actually the "common" view (in this context)?
I've got decades with databases so I cannot even begin to fathom where such an attitude would develop, but, is it?
Boggling.
- Coming here for insight does not in any way demonstrate that genuine insight is actually widely available here.
- Yes yes, it's only a problem if it affects you.
Utterly tedious.
- That is not the "stupid" used in this context.
- Okay, so, if you think people are only metaphorically referring to their "minds eye", then you probably have aphantasia. If the idea of people "counting sheep" to go to sleep confuses you, thinking that perhaps you could not go to sleep if you just lay there counting to yourself (hint: that's not what they mean), welcome to club aphantasia.
I haven't even read the comments yet and I guarantee there are people here debating that there is some spectrum or degree of quality to the imagery of the minds eye, and those people don't understand that there is nothing which can possess qualities when you have aphantasia. If there are degrees, then you don't have aphantasia.
It's entirely possible to imagine things, and to access data/information about things that the brain is presumably constructing, but there is no direct, sober, conscious access to mental imagery. None. Not "fuzzy", not "cloudy", not "not very strong": none.
Resonates? Again, welcome aboard.
No? Thanks for stopping by. :)
- Steve died.
He already covered this: https://youtu.be/K1WrHH-WtaA?si=tHrGBNmLlIfp4NSv
- The book has a lot of flaws. The trauma industry that's grown up around it and similar work has a lot of flaws. The post has a lot of flaws.
They're all quite confident, though.
- TLDR: RMS remains correct and we continue losing.
- It's a fine post except for this:
> Countless companies have cited how they improved their security or the amount of reported bugs or memory leaks by simply rewriting their C++ codebases in Rust. Now is that because of Rust? I’d argue in some small part, yes.
Just delete this. Even an hour's familiarity with Rust will give you a visceral understanding that "Rewrites of C++ codebases to Rust always yield more memory-safe results than before" is absolutely not because "any rewrite of an existing codebase is going to yield better results". If you don't have that, skip it, because it weakens the whole piece.
- The actual central point is that the brain requires conditioning via experience. That shouldn't be controversial, and I can't decide if the general replies here are an extended and ironic elaboration of his point or not.
If you never memorize anything, but are highly adept at searching for that information, your brain has only learned how to search for things. Any work it needs to do in the absence of searching will be compromised due to the lack of conditioning/experience. Maybe that works for you, or maybe that works in the world that's being built currently, but it doesn't change the basic premise at all.
- No idea whether this holds up, but the human body is all about conditioning and maximizing energy efficiency, so it should at least be unsurprising if true.
My vehicle has a number of self-driving capabilities. When I used them, my brain rapidly stopped attending to the functions I'd given over, to the extent that there was a "gap" before I noticed it was about to do the wrong thing. On resumption of performing that work myself, it was almost as if I had forgotten some elements of it for a moment while my brain sorted it out.
No real reason to think that outsourcing our thinking/writing/etc will cause our brains to respond any differently. Most of the "reasoned" arguments I see against that idea seem based on false equivalences.
- This particular approach, intelligently applied, ultimately leads to a kind of freedom. Most of our preferences are simple conditioning, prejudices really, and only serve to constrain optionality.
Excessive rigidity is an early death.
- Ancient history for me but once upon a time my company was developing a web application with C++ that used XSLT to render HTML (with our "API" exposing data via XML). It was fast even then, and gave us a great deal of flexibility. We were certainly fans of XSLT.
- For the most part I've loved Go since just before 1.0 through today. Nits can surely be picked, but "it's still not good" is a strange take.
I think there is little to no chance it can hold on to its central vision as the creators "age out" of the project, which will make the language worse (and render the tradeoffs pointless).
I think allowing it to become pigeon holed as "a language for writing servers" has cost and will continue to cost important mindshare that instead jumps to Rust or remains in Python or etc.
Maybe it's just fun, like harping on about how bad Visual Basic was, which was true but irrelevant, as the people who needed to do the things it did well got on with doing so.
- If true, there should be prison terms and the end of Tesla as an ongoing concern. There won't be, but there should be.
- They are, generally, propping up the regime. So long as the media continues to report this regime as a temporary and normal occurrence, regardless of whether a specific media outlet labels this as positive or negative, it supports the regime.
- I have a shelf full of bottles of ink I wouldn't have bought if the site had existed (and/or I had known about it sooner, since that spans years). They've prevented many similar wasted purchases, and guided several delighted purchases.
Very useful!