jibal

13 ms·

271.
by jibal 3mo ago
Right. This whole argument is ridiculous.
272.
by jibal 3mo ago
Heh. I had already been programming for 28 years when it came out.
273.
by jibal 3mo ago
> The article mentions this but just accepts the inaccessiblity of the real thing as a given. Reality is in fact a given. If you mean that the author is just fine with that reality, that's patently false. > presumably because the
274.
by jibal 3mo ago
Only if you assume that all studies are valid and accurate. And even then you are drawing the wrong conclusion -- if everything is "neutral" then that means that all the positive studies are wrong and all the negative studies are
275.
by jibal 3mo ago
MAGA disproves that.
276.
by jibal 3mo ago
The goalpost moving is by definition bad faith. > What I said isn't bad faith, that's literally not how encyclopedias work. Changing the subject is yet more bad faith ... what I called bad faith wasn't anything about how e
277.
by jibal 4mo ago
> Are you though? Yes ... read the other comments and TFA that you have completely ignored. And I wouldn't have said that I was talking about that if I weren't talking about that. > People seem to get offended by the notion
278.
by jibal 4mo ago
Of course it's not general public knowledge ... that's why we put information in encyclopedias and other sources of information. People run across a mention of Odin and want to know about it.
279.
by jibal 4mo ago
Note the bad faith of your correspondent: > As a reader thank god not everything that has grabbed the attention of social media gets an article. ... > what I want doesn't matter for an encyclopedia.
280.
by jibal 4mo ago
Ginger Bill directly addresses this erroneous argument in TFA: > Many people think Odin is "just for games" at the moment, but that tells you more about the people who say that than Odin itself. This is especially true when ga
281.
by jibal 4mo ago
I'm talking about a universe of developing systems programming languages, not "the attention of social media" -- that's a silly shallow bad faith reduction. And I see that elsewhere you have written "a archive for w
282.
by jibal 4mo ago
What should be persuasive is a simple logical inference from the statements made to my conclusion. From the article: > If you are terminally online on programming circles, you most likely have heard of Odin, it's so obvious that I d
283.
by jibal 4mo ago
The Church-Turing Thesis disagrees.
284.
by jibal 4mo ago
"Compare the brain to something like ChatGPT or a large language model. We can do far more, across far more situations, on a tiny fraction of the energy — and without being trained on the whole internet. The brain got there through evo
285.
by jibal 4mo ago
Yes, you have it mixed up ... Jai development started 2 years before Odin. And the claim was > Odin was a major influence on Jai which simply isn't true. Just google it, e.g., https://handmade.network/forums/t&#
286.
by jibal 4mo ago
The author knows the orientation of his language better than anyone else. > Odin was a major influence on Jai. This is a popular joke because of the release timeline. The reality is the inverse, and Ginger Bill has acknowledged the influ
287.
by jibal 4mo ago
Odin is extremely well known to every human being who keeps up on programming language development, along with Zig, Nim, D, Jai, V, Crystal, Carbon, and others. "programming topics" isn't relevant.
288.
by jibal 4mo ago
You've completely missed the point of how silicon chips are organized rock, and have completely invented and projected a condescending view that no one actually intends.
289.
by jibal 4mo ago
> On the other hand, for those who understand these abstractions very well, AI agents are not a threat but a multiplier.... It would be better without the editorializing.
290.
by jibal 4mo ago
I'm a mathematician AND I understand English. Your statement about the halting problem is not analogous to the one in question and your comment completely ignores my analysis, where I did in fact take "in general" to be un
291.
by jibal 4mo ago
But a) that's not what his words mean in English and b) that's irrelevant. "in general" quantifies over all occasions, not over all bugs on one occasion. To quote my own response: === Apparently the mathematician author
292.
by jibal 4mo ago
The author made multiple statements, and one of them was “it is not in general possible to find bugs by examining the code”, which is simply false.
293.
by jibal 4mo ago
Apparently the mathematician author doesn't understand the meaning of his own natural language quantifiers. “it is not in general possible to find bugs by examining the code” means “it is not in general possible to find ANY bugs by exa
294.
by jibal 4mo ago
This absurdly cramped view already has significant pushback/refutation in the responses on mathstodon.
295.
by jibal 4mo ago
I don't need an off topic point-missing lecture on how language works that could have and might as well have been written by a clanker. The fact remains that exoplanets are by definition a type of planet, regardless of whether Jerusa
296.
by jibal 4mo ago
This is quite wrong. https://www.iau.org/IAU/Science/What-we-do/Pluto-and-the-Dev... "More generally, a planet: a. orbits its host star, just as the Earth and Jupiter orbit the Sun, b. is large enough to
297.
by jibal 4mo ago
No, The IAU definition does not say that. You and others are confusing the definition of a planet with its application to planets in the solar system (and thus to Pluto) -- IAU Resolution 5A: Definition of a Planet in the Solar System . Th
298.
by jibal 4mo ago
It's an ancient phrase.
299.
by jibal 4mo ago
A high enough wet bulb temperature can wipe out all of humanity.
300.
by jibal 4mo ago
It's perfectly irrelevant to the thread.

More ›