vrighter

38 ms·

871.
by vrighter 2y ago
the zx spectrum did this too, except you could only type the "short forms" (which were always rendered in full). It had keywords on its keys. I.e. to type print, you had to press the "print" key.
872.
by vrighter 2y ago
two seconds is a VERY VERY VERY long time. That is mind-bogglingly, insanely slow.
873.
by vrighter 2y ago
I'm used to vim, editing in anything else is anything but pleasant. It's subjective. It's not about speed or anything. I think slower than I type, so the bottleneck is not my editing speed. But ergonomically it's more
874.
by vrighter 2y ago
except software, of course. Nowadays it seems that software is all about creating problems to create solutions for.
875.
by vrighter 2y ago
but small scale isolated things are not a hydrogen infrastructure are they?
876.
by vrighter 2y ago
no, i expect the system to answer the question I asked. Not the question it thinks I wanted to ask. The question is not underspecified, because the point of it is to demonstrate how the llm will never tell you it doesn't know. Nor will
877.
by vrighter 2y ago
Robotics, without a doubt. Those exist today and are an actually feasible technology. Agents will very likely die out in the not-too-distant future, once the hype dies down and some more lawsuits go around and companies realize that "9
878.
by vrighter 2y ago
x - (x - floor(x)) == x truncated to an integer when x is an irrational number > 1: "x - floor(x)" is just the fractional part of x, so it's an irrational number which is not equal to x. Subtracting the fractional part fro
879.
by vrighter 2y ago
Not really, not in practice. The order of execution is non-deterministic when running on a cluster or a gpu, or more than one core of the CPU and rounding errors propagate differently on each run.
880.
by vrighter 2y ago
NAtural language isn't precise enough to describe exactly what's happening. If you do try to use natural language for that purpose, trying to eliminate ambiguity, you end up with legalese. And people can't read legalese, even
881.
by vrighter 2y ago
Do you know the number of atoms in my coffee cup right now? If you say "No, I don't" then you're already way ahead of any LLM, even the biggest ones. Remember, I asked about how many are in there right now . The only co
882.
by vrighter 2y ago
Once I was high and thought of hallucinations as "noise in the output". From that perspective, and the fact that LLMs are probabilistic machines, then halving the noise would probably involve 4x the computation needed. Which seems
883.
by vrighter 2y ago
thanks a lot!
884.
by vrighter 2y ago
What we currently have is A. Before adding the G, we have to get to the I first.
885.
by vrighter 2y ago
what's a FAST service? never heard of the term, and the phrase "fast service" isn't exactly easily searchable.
886.
by vrighter 2y ago
if you want to fuel an airliner with hydrogen, it might be possible, but you'd have to kick most passengers off to make place for the hydrogen
887.
by vrighter 2y ago
hydrogen was never in the running in the first place. Toyota were just kidding themselves. Billion dollar projects still can't get handling hydrogen right. A hydrogen infrastructure is pure sci-fi
888.
by vrighter 2y ago
do { Get(Current_Character); if (Current_Character == '*') break; print(Current_Character); } while (true); I don't see why this needs a new construct in languages that don't already
889.
by vrighter 2y ago
"Semi-Dynamic Language" - Zig? "Value Database" - Mumps? lol
890.
by vrighter 2y ago
Meh. I didn't reflash my phone. I didn't root it. I didn't do anything to modify its system files whatsoever. I just installed KDE Connect, and an open source keyboard. Banking apps refuse to run because of those (because my
891.
by vrighter 2y ago
thanks, got a local copy of all of them
892.
by vrighter 2y ago
holy shit, thanks for the tip! I also learned programming from those usborne books, using qbasic (The dragon32 ran a version of microsoft basic, so the code for it was generally quite compatible with qbasic). I'll go download them all
893.
by vrighter 2y ago
No, it's because the software they write has higher requirements than computers at the time can provide. They bite off more than the hardware can chew. And they already know exactly just how much the hardware we have can chew... yet th
894.
by vrighter 2y ago
Python has a lot of footguns (and special __ methods), and insane, alien, scoping rules. And lots and lots of syntax, as well. It is not easy to learn (I have no idea why it's considered a beginner friendly language). It benefits from
895.
by vrighter 2y ago
Code always has types. Even in dynamic languages. The difference is whether those types can be expressed in the code, or have to be kept completely in your head (or constantly having to re-figure out what they are).
896.
by vrighter 2y ago
I wrote a blog post about this a long time ago: https://vrighter.livejournal.com/5582.html
897.
by vrighter 2y ago
first time I tried it, I asked it to find bugs in a piece of very well tested C code. It introduced an off-by-one error by miscounting the number of arguments in an sprintf call, breaking the program. And then proceeded to fail to find that
898.
by vrighter 2y ago
probably because it isn't any better
899.
by vrighter 2y ago
replied to the wrong coment, sorry
900.
by vrighter 2y ago
"bits of information" doesn't mean 1's and 0's. "bits" is a measure of entropy. If you send an analog signal over a wire and the receiver on the other end can distinguish between 1024 different voltages re

More ›