It's not not AI generated code: Python is absolutely atrocious and is one of the most popular languages right now.

I have one app that management insisted I use. Its written in Python and slow as molasses. The developer goes on and on about "how well it scales" and came in and set us up on a Kubernetes cluster where we had like 8 VM's serving a simple app that shouldn't take more than a single machine to run.

You don't have to code in things in raw assembly, but so many things are stacking on top of inefficient libraries on top of more inefficient libraries that we're wasting any advances in hardware.

We need smarter compilers so humans can write maintainable microservices or whatever and the compiler can build a deployable efficient monolithic binary.

That's the point of having a Universal Turing Machine.

Our concept of compilers is still from the 70's with incremental improvements. Perhaps Go has taken one step in this direction more than others on the journey of a hundred miles. SSA trees and such were once a hot topic of research but not everybody is distracted with sexy AI topics.

John is correct on the end goal but unrealistic on the path.

Complexity is always preserved but can be shifted.

It's possible transformers could be used to find such paths rather than traditional compiler strategies but retraining is too expensive for small changes at this point.

Maybe some young punk computer scientists will buck the AI trend in the near future since that's what everybody is doing.

Penrose's group has some actual evidence for the Cyclic Cosmology model in CMB patterns.

I'll go with hypothesis/data over formulae.

3% is not going to be enough, expect 3 times as much cuts by the year end, then twice more as much in the following year. The money isn't flowing, once the money is not flowing the cuts start. Money flows when the economy expands due to actual increase of production or money flows when it is handed out for free by borrowing, printing. Once the flow slows down or stops, the music stops, everyone tries to grab the closest chair. Every company will be shrinking this year and in the subsequent years, until the attitudes change, government actually shrinks by a couple of orders of magnitude, rules that prevent productivity become unenforceable and/or are rescinded, gold replaces fake paper as money, then people will start rebuilding.

Yup. I've seen how many people on here cared about search engine news summaries, paywalled content and general attitudes towards anything copyrighted that isn't given away freely, the disdain for any kind of intellectual property rights.

If this was about copying books, news, movies, software, etc for their own enjoyment, the attitude changes and the narrative turns into "I wasn't going to buy it anyway". But AI model training bad torrents gud.

"The UK creative industries reflect our national stories"
Can you still say that when My Lady Jane shows the king of England as black, gay, and disabled?

I mean there's certainly a narrative there I say nothing of an agenda ... but in no way does it represent the British "national story".

TIL: Leo (Bob) was a math major who tutored physics in college (in Philly).

Nerd as Pontiff could become interesting.

Maybe there are math majors who didn't drop acid in college and I just haven't met any.

That's pretty much bullshit. Drones are piloted, targets are identified by humans, targets are chosen by humans.

You've "pretty much" described any anti-aircraft missile, or a guided anti-tank missile. They "locate their target and kill autonomously". They aren't just chucked into the air on blow up whatever the microprocessor happens to find and let god sort it out missions, and neither are drones.

Killer "robots" are not a problem, and they are inevitable. The problem is throwing something deadly at ... the darkness ... and hoping for the best. You don't need drones or robots to do that, it's the same problem with land mines, and it's a problem with a lot of stuff used improperly. You're sanewashing that practice and it's wrong.

What exactly does it take to create a platform that gets regulated this way.

If you make a programmable toaster for example. At what point do you get to say your toaster manufacturer is distorting the market for toaster software. That's all I want to know is where is the line for saying this is now a public platform, we've enshrined into law protections for software markets on ... platforms meeting some criteria. A toaster does not need to be programmable at all.. well, it may have some processing capability who knows, ok so .. a toaster certainly does not need extensible software based features that can be added by the end user? But if it does, and allows users to do X, Y, or Z, then it becomes a regulated software platform, and any system of conveying the software based features may become a regulated software market subject to certain rules meant to protect fairness and prevent unfair market distortions?

IDK, it's just that software markets are not regulated the way financial markets are. We may wish they were, but they're not, in any country AFAIK. So what exactly is a platform what what requirements are they subjected to is a little fuzzy to me. I've been thinking about this since Microsoft's anti-trust trial, and I was very much in the f-Microsoft Gates Borg camp, but it never really sat well with me even then, what exactly is a software market and how are they protected. I mean even a young teen can look at his SNES and scratch his head on that one right. Microsoft did create a market for desktop software, but when and where and what protections kick in exactly never made any damned sense. It was easy to say well, it's different because Microsoft, or Apple had a monopoly, and that's still on shaky ground.. a monopoly on their platform? Again... looking at my SNES. So if I put Linux a toaster and called it a ToastBoy, where do I cross the line into where you get to tell me what it MUST do ... as a platform ... as a programmable device, etc. MUST I give you an interface for loading new software? GPL says you can do it yourself. I don't HAVE to do shit, so when is it not my platform.

Less than twenty four hours ago you just learned that water levels are not constant. This is easily accessible information and for example, even the elevation at opposite ends of small lakes are different and usually published. Like anywhere with dam probably has a state website or power utility publishing that info. It's not a conspiracy, there are a lot of variables the larger the scale, at ocean scale it's even more complicated, even the land itself can be moving up or down at different rates everywhere.

Take the win dude, you learned something today. You should be asking yourself why you were leading with the strong assertion you did instead of asking easily answered questions that would lead you to the truth all on your own. Everyone gets a pass for not knowing everything all the time, but doubling down on stupid and refusing to be wrong, you lose all respect for that.

I ironically find myself agreeing with the employees here.

Overwatch is such a pablum of woke crap that I endorse anything that will kill it more quickly. Go union!

Here's an example of the "rigorousness" of such science.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fin...

Let me be clear, I think the research done and data gathered is amazing and insightful. The authors are careful to regionalize their conclusions but cautiously generalize only when reasonably likely.

What I take issue with is the exception handling; when the pre 1000ad data very clearly doesn't fit the expectation, they just TOSS IT OUT (shrug). If your data -which looks solid- shows a significant change when you don't think there should be one, FOLLOW THE DATA.

The result, of course, is a reinforcement of the good old "hockey stick" - little change until recently which fits a desired climate change narrative so much more neatly...

"Though global sea levels "varied little" for the 2,000 years before the 20th century"

I know slashdot is deeply Christian, but why are the last 2000 years so sacred?
"Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). "
Seems like sea level has radically changed over time, that the highest peak was higher than today, and that over the last 100k+ years, the trend with each cycle has been to greater peaks.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Focean.si.edu%2Fthrough-t...

" You can always find an example to prove any point you want to make"

I enjoy the complete lack of self-awareness in this comment.

Is a cunt.
"It's (college) the best place to meet your co-founder and your wife."
That's a cunt's answer.