staunton

59 ms·

361.
by staunton 3y ago
There's some people who break something, realize it, just leave it as is, and cannot comprehend why you would think they should maybe help fix it... So I'd guess the praise is for not being like that.
362.
by staunton 3y ago
> "You can't be sure a loop will do what you want it to do." From my limited experience with "proprietary bullshit languages that only exist to hook customers", there's ways to mess up how loops work in the
363.
by staunton 3y ago
Indeed, my grandma is on Martix (I did help her set it up though)
364.
by staunton 3y ago
> there was no point in time that formally verified software was mainstream. Even attempts at that have turned out broken later on (e.g. KRACK attack on wpa2) In what ways was wpa2 an attempt at formally verified software? The KRACK atta
365.
by staunton 3y ago
The amount of new syntax and programming concepts being constantly crammed into C is much smaller. If I had to quantity it, I'd estimate that C++ is by now roughly 3.5 programming languages in one while C is maybe 1.5... The more stuff
366.
by staunton 3y ago
3. and 4. sound a bit like like "For C++ you have nice tools that solve problems that don't arise with Rust in the first place"
367.
by staunton 3y ago
even C++ <-> C++ is rough as soon as you're dealing with object code...
368.
by staunton 3y ago
> Would you bet your life Definitely not. But it's rare that so much is at stake. I would not bet my life on the borrow checker either, there's a lot of things that can go wrong in a program. Money is of course a question of ho
369.
by staunton 3y ago
> standards committee or bjarnes, what they're going to tell you is to rewrite it The same will be true for Rust in 50 years (assuming Rust doesn't die any time soon). If they didn't think it was worth modernizing, they&#x
370.
by staunton 3y ago
Plenty & mature != Easy to work with. Ever had to run make from within CMake? (so that's a build system generator running a build system while generating a build system...)
371.
by staunton 3y ago
> you're always rewriting C++ to keep up with the language If that's what you want to do, which is a big if. I guess strictly speaking the same is true for Rust but in Rust, with it being new, it "feels" more like I
372.
by staunton 3y ago
Any source you recommend? Never heard anyone touting it...
373.
by staunton 3y ago
You'd have to file them, which is not free. However, the point is moot. As someone pointed out above, putting AI-generated stuff out in public probably doesn't concern patents in any way.
374.
by staunton 3y ago
It probably is illegal...
375.
by staunton 3y ago
> then plot a graph of "historic interest of the US in the ME" against, "oil dependency on the middle east" I'd love to see such a plot :D One would have to come up with some proxy-metrics to stand in (one shoul
376.
by staunton 3y ago
The Germans had very little nuclear power (and would probably have taken decades to build a single new one even if they had wanted to). The German decision to quit nuclear had basically no impact on EU energy generation. (It had an effect o
377.
by staunton 3y ago
This is a very US-centric view. The things you mention might have an impact but not everything that happens is just due to what the US does. Israel wants to normalize relations with neighbors because that's what any country wants to do
378.
by staunton 3y ago
> At least until the LLMs surpass humans at being charismatic Look into "virtual influencers". Sounds like you should find it interesting.
379.
by staunton 3y ago
> judges' personal views and emotions are a large part of these cases That's a completely separate question. We're talking about automating lawyers, not judges. (to be a good lawyer in such a situation, you would need to m
380.
by staunton 3y ago
I would say that's a special case of my second option. Maybe I didn't phrase it broadly enough. It concerns a single question or issue. (Unless somebody thinks they have some magical evidence or experience that concerns literally
381.
by staunton 3y ago
The issue with people disregarding security protocols goes much deeper than them being unaware of what's possible. People just hope nothing will happen and avoid thinking about it. You're facing "Who's got time for tha
382.
by staunton 3y ago
Scammers have fooled countless mothers into believing their voice belongs to one of their children before text-to-speach was a thing. (Just to say it's not incredibly hard. I'm not suggesting that being able to automate it wouldn&
383.
by staunton 3y ago
I guess that says something about how that company was usually run...
384.
by staunton 3y ago
And don't forget the fax machines...
385.
by staunton 3y ago
In practice, there is little if any difference between seals and signatures in tems of security. A signature (or stamp) is easy to fake and get away with for a while. It's very rare that the authenticity of signatures is checked right
386.
by staunton 3y ago
There are two meanings of "optimist" (same for "pessimist") that are often confused and mixed up. The first meaning is a person who is biased to expect overly positive (negative) outcomes compared to what is suggested
387.
by staunton 3y ago
Fair point. I meant proofs about semantics, unless stated otherwise. So using tools like HOL and Coq. Can't edit the original comment anymore.
388.
by staunton 3y ago
It doesn't sound like you necessarily disagree. Maybe we use different meanings of "worth the effort"? I meant it in terms of money that a company can save or make from deciding to expend that effort. You also have an additio
389.
by staunton 3y ago
As someone who really enjoys formal proofs and loves playing with the tools used for it (and seeing the huge progress being made there), I have to strongly disagree with this framing. The reason why people don't use proofs in software
390.
by staunton 3y ago
> OpenAI is currently having a hard time making ChatGPT+ profitable If they made a profit right now, all investors would hit the ceiling and tell them to stop doing such insane things. In the current stage they're supposed to grow a

More ›