kajaktum

11 ms·

121.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Having a standard is not even possible technically when you have 1 player that is too good. Due to Hyrum’s Law, any small divergence from the spec will be observed and relied on. Why would you work against the spec which is nebulous, when y
122.
by kajaktum 4y ago
I mean it doesn’t do any QA on them. My banking website won’t load on Firefox for example.
123.
by kajaktum 4y ago
So how is this any different if we don’t have a browser? People still want to visit “websites” which in your world is even worse. Because now every website is a distinct application (yikes!). The problem is that people are willing to run ar
124.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Browsers are just “standardised” OS at this point. Really, what is the difference? It seems to me that people basically wants a 1 to 1 mapping between every OS feature to browsers. I wouldn’t be surprised if this standard will fall apart in
125.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Not true. It is only that way because people have only considered a single kind of hypothetical human (probably of themselves). But solving this merely requires us to integrate all of these solution into 1 by mapping the personality -> s
126.
by kajaktum 4y ago
I think I understood completely but you are wrong. Sarcasm depends on “how” not “what” is being communicated.
127.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Sarcasm doesn’t work with text based medium. Is this sarcasm?
128.
by kajaktum 4y ago
This is literally slippery slop fallacy? . Are we dropping that one from the rulebook?
129.
by kajaktum 4y ago
You can use Arc eveywhere i guess?
130.
by kajaktum 4y ago
But… the tv isn't connected to wifi so how would it communicate to the nearby wifi?
131.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Every single one? A complicated enough JS project will have ad-hoc type checking with typeof and null coalesce operator.
132.
by kajaktum 4y ago
I would spend the premium to buy a stupid dumbass tv.
133.
by kajaktum 4y ago
You specifically mentioned that this is a footgun: > auto& x = state.locked()->x; But I don't see how the reference here is gonna make a difference unless i am reading the lifetime of the lock here incorrectly. For example, t
134.
by kajaktum 4y ago
> let res: Vec<_> = iterator.iter().map(|x| x.foo()?).collect(); This make sense to me? Why shouldn't it return early from the lambda in `map`? Had it return the "highest level function" in the scope then that would
135.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Wait why is this a footgun?
136.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Like what? And if they do, is it really sustainable? Are these standard organisations really funded by the papers they sell?
137.
by kajaktum 4y ago
But that doesn't explain why US as a government is not allowed to do human genome experimentation (HGE) ? In fact, it makes even less sense to make HGE taboo than AI for the reason you mentioned. It doesn't make sense to ban somet
138.
by kajaktum 4y ago
You can always augment your account with your government ID or some sort if you are famous.
139.
by kajaktum 4y ago
It doesn't but you can always augment your ID by attaching a government ID or some sort. On the internet tho? If you _only_ have texts, there is no feasible way to distinguish a person and a bot.
140.
by kajaktum 4y ago
You can use the distributed proof to say that these accounts belong to you. So if you are doubtful about the integrity of a post, you can look up their blockchain ID and find out what have they been doing elsewhere publicly. Additionally, a
141.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Isn't blockchain a kind of distributed proof? You can now say that this user in reddit is related to this post in hackernews via blockchain. Of course, there's no way to prevent a bot to create multiple accounts in multiple websit
142.
by kajaktum 4y ago
This is one of the few places where blockchain is actually useful? It is not possible nor worthwhile to have anonymous discussion that we do right now anymore given how good these LLMs are. And i am not sure if specific lingo or “lurk more”
143.
by kajaktum 4y ago
I dont understand why people are so opposed to or feel its ridiculous to halt progress on AI when we do the same thing for experiments on human genome? Is China going to stop because we do?
144.
by kajaktum 4y ago
The danger is socioeconomic. AI will displace many, many jobs (it already does). Many people will claim that we will simply create different, new jobs. However, we have to think about what kind of job ja now viable for the average person? T
145.
by kajaktum 4y ago
This is a very naive take. Out best psychologists aren’t using their expertise to solve mental health but to hack them. What makes you think people will use LLMs for good? It’s far more profitable to do bad with it.
146.
by kajaktum 4y ago
> Other nations with more advanced abilities also seem able to freely attempt to prevent them from doing so though. So how is this any different? Other group of people with more connection to the government can enforce a law to prevent o
147.
by kajaktum 4y ago
So do you agree that nations should be able to freely develop/discover nuclear production? Edit: We actually don't want people to develop something "too good". There are some things in the past century that have been &qu
148.
by kajaktum 4y ago
How else would you implement tagged union? Rust already optimize away the discriminant when its Option<NonZero>
149.
by kajaktum 4y ago
I guess. The other day i created a PR to turn some macros into a variadic template and got a compilation error that can be resolved by moving some functions around. No one could figure out why so i just closed the PR. There are so many movi
150.
by kajaktum 4y ago
Created more jobs, sure but what kind of jobs? More complicated, mind draining jobs that many, many people are simply not capable of. The general human intelligent cannot catch up with the rate that the market is asking for.

More ›