jurgenaut23

11 ms·

121.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Yeah, that's why I said this is an unpopular opinion. Historical records tell us that energy consumption is a great indicator of civilization advancement, but so is territory. Now, the problem is that there is no further territory to a
122.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Not energy in and of itself. Cheap unlimited energy will just make us push planetary boundaries even further. We need a reduction of human impact on our planet, not an increase of it.
123.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
There are many more planetary limits than just climate change, and many of them are governed by how much natural resources we consume and, incidentally, how much waste we produce. Cheap unlimited energy will just make us push these boundari
124.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Unpopular opinion of mine: I think that viable fusion energy would be the final nudge to our demise. Our civilisation is an energy-junkie who happened to stumble on a huge bag full of cash around 1860 and the discovery of oil distillation.
125.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Super happy, I think Polars is just an amazing tool! We are in the process of kicking Pandas out of our codebase to replace it with Polars, and I can't tell how satisfactory this has been. The API is so clean and nicely designed compar
126.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Beyond the raw scientific excitement, can you explain how this would affect mankind (positively and, of course, perhaps negatively)?
127.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
The reason why LLMs are truly revolutionary is that they suddenly allow to connect and interface systems that used to require a human in the loop because of their ambiguous interfaces. LLMs can (and will) do a lot more than providing chatbo
128.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Exactly! I am positive there will be a ton of negative impact, like with most (all?) of tech. And it might be worse than anything we’ve seen (although beating the Snapchat algo might prove tricky). But that’s NOT what Tegmark and Hofstadter
129.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
> The “attack surface” on human sensibility is just enormous if you’re able to use believably human language. That's a fantastic quote ;-)
130.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
Yes, I actually think this is true. See my above comment, which supports your claim.
131.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
I read Hofstadter's GEB and Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe, and of course I developed a rather fond admiration of these brilliant minds. For some reason, both of them have developed a profound aversion and fear of what they c
132.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
You know you’re wrong when you’re so entrenched and extreme on any topic, let alone one that is highly emotional. That there are plenty of toxic and useless middle managers, I don’t dispute that. But middle management is what makes or break
133.
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
23 years old, add the date please
134.
Effective Communication for Engineering Teams(craft.do)
1 points by jurgenaut23 4y ago|0 comments
135.
New Cisco Technology Can Predict Network Issues Before They Happen(markets.businessinsider.com)
1 points by jurgenaut23 4y ago|1 comments
136.
by jurgenaut23 6y ago
This is what happens when you read only technical blogs and books and you spent so much time in front of a computer that the whole of reality seems amenable to some form of online/virtual experience.
137.
by jurgenaut23 6y ago
I am not talking about Google specifically. It is true for any company, you are right, but I don't think you can claim to be have offset your carbon footprint completely until you account for the global impact of your business on this
138.
by jurgenaut23 6y ago
Libertarians seem to think that taxes and charity donations are two equally valid (but not necessarily equally effective) ways to help your community. They feel like they have a choice to assign a portion of their wealth to either. Oftentim
139.
by jurgenaut23 6y ago
How about the carbon footprint of their users while using their services?
140.
by jurgenaut23 7y ago
You realize that the U.S. has probably many more infectious areas than Europe?