I don't disagree with you that you need to have a singe cohesive design vision based on solving for users. But I think that certainly usability testing can lead to even better results and is mostly constrained by cost.
In a way it doesn't surprise me one bit. In a world in which everybody is told they're important you get people who actually believe that they are more important than others to a degree they start seeing them as NPCs. And you don't actually care about NPCs getting inconvenienced or even killed as long as you are marginally safer yourself. I've seen someone wearing a t-shirt that said 'I'm a big deal'. I kid you not.
I'm not arguing that LLMs are at a point today where we can blindly trust their outputs in most applications, I just don't think that 100% correct output is necessarily a requirement for that. What it needs to be is correct often enough that the cost of reviewing the output far outweighs the average cost of any errors in the output, just like with a compiler.
This even applies to human written code and human mistakes, as the expected cost of errors goes up we spend more time on having multiple people review the code and we worry more about carefully designing tests.
Many people are shallow thinkers with no intellectual integrity who have never learned much of anything and say the most incredibly foolish, ignorant, and dishonest things.
BMW is building EVs like any other serious car manufacturer and doesn't show signs of going back and throwing away all those investments. They will have to prove the worth of their mark-up though but I think it's reasonable they ask for a level playing field against Chinese state-supported manufacturers selling below or at cost with state subsidies.
This is a fascinating experiment! I've just been reading the first few paragraphs of the paper ... easily readable, intended to be accessible by anyone.
In Gauss's time mathematicians would solve problems, publish the solutions in an encrypted form, and then challenge their contemporaries to solve the problems.
Here the authors of a paper on the arXiv say:
"To assess the ability of current AI systems to correctly answer research-level mathematics questions, we share a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now; the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time."
Tao says:
"... the challenge is to see whether 10 research-level problems (that arose in the course of the authors research) are amenable to modern AI tools within a fixed time period (until Feb 13).
"The problems appear to be out of reach of current "one-shot" AI prompts, but were solved by human domain experts, and would presumably a fair fraction would also be solvable by other domain experts equipped with AI tools. They are technical enough that a non-domain-expert would struggle to verify any AI-generated output on these problems, so it seems quite challenging to me to have such a non-expert solve any of these problems, but one could always be surprised."
Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry.
(Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for brutality and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)
> If writing the code is the easy part, why would I want someone else to write it?
Arguably, because LLM tokens are expensive so LLM generated code could be considered a donation? But then so is the labor involved so it's kinda moot. I don't believe people pay software developers to write code for them to contribute to open source projects either (if that makes any sense).
The Ian's Secure Knot is what I've used for years and the only shoelace knot my kids were taught. Trivial modification of the usual bunny ears and hardly ever comes undone.
People is kept away from details by shortening their attention span with the production of continuous pervasive stimuli. Regarding Trump, when he does something apparently stupid (on behalf of the rich people pulling his strings, let's never forget this) he's just forcing the media and people consuming them to start talking about the next event without further exploring more important ones.
The best part of stumbling upon niche subjects is learning about their mythology. The name Clifford W. Ashley meant nothing to me five minutes ago, but now I'm in awe at the fact his work from over 80 years ago is still the authoritative source on the subject.
Thinking about the this, while it’s a cool achievement, how useful is it really? It realizes on the fact there is a large comprehensive set of tests and a large number of available projects that can function as tests.
That situation is extremely uncommon for most development
I'm talking about relatively short running transactions (one call to the HTTP API) which load data, process it in the application, and commit the result to the database. Even for those a significant portion of the time can be spent in the application, or communication latency between db and application. Splitting those into two shorter transactions might sometimes improve performance a bit, but usually isn't worth the complexity (especially since that means the database doesn't ensure that the business transaction is serializable as a whole).
For long running operations, I usually create a long running read-only transaction/query with snapshot consistency (so the db doesn't need to track what it reads), combined with one or more short writing transactions.
I thought this was going to be a joke article about how easy it is to not be a pedo. But it turns out the author did have engagements with Epstein, and is now trying to pretend he just randomly showed up in the files.
Do you know how many times I’ve appeared in the files? Zero. It’s very easy to not appear in them. 99.999999% of people didn’t.
What stood out to me is that AI seems far less concerned with domain age than Google is. If there’s enough contextual discussion around a product (ie. Reddit threads, blog posts, docs, comparisons) then AI models seem willing to surface it surprisingly early.
That said, what I’m still trying to understand is consistency. I’ve seen cases where a product gets recommended heavily for a week, then effectively disappears unless that external context keeps getting reinforced.
So it feels less like “rank once and you’re good” (SEO) and more like “stay present in the conversation.” Almost closer to reputation management than classic content marketing.
Curious if you’ve seen the same thing, especially around how long external mentions keep influencing AI recommendations before they decay.
You're right, a loooong time ago there were, but the removed the platforms on that line.
But, you're only a few minutes from Maastricht, so that shouldn't add too much time, and you get to get a good seat, since it's the start of the IC journey ;)
In my opinion error handling in C is great. It forces you to actually think about it, deal with them as close as possible and makes you write it in a forward compatible way. Much better than exceptions were you never no what one might throw in another version.
> The barebones-macro-system?
The CPP is a different language and designed that way so you can use another language that suits you better, most don't do that, because the default is fine.
Exactly. Interesting that both orwell and azimov were wrong in different ways. Also azimov seems unaware of the Fabian link to the title which is surely a factor in the origin.
Looking at their examples, I imagine people who have written HTML and React before can't possibly use these libraries without losing their sanity.
That's not a criticism of these frameworks -- there are constraints coming from Rust and from the scope of the frameworks. They just can't offer a React like experience.
But I am sure that companies like Anthropic or OpenAI aren't going to build their application using these libraries, even with AI.
> AI usage should be banned in general. It takes jobs faster than creating new ones ..
I don't have an strong opinion about that in either direction, but curious: Do you feel the same about everything, or is just about this specific technology? For example, should the nail gun have been forbidden if it was invented today, as one person with a nail gun could probably replace 3-4 people with normal "manual" hammers?
You feel the same about programmers who are automating others out of work without the use of AI too?
