if a hackathon amounts to gluing together a hosted 3rd party api with python... and only using its canned features in the most trivial way... it wasnt much of a "programming" contest in the first place.
It almost seems more like an advertisment for a hosted web service
> Every doctor youâ(TM)ve met could probably become a software engineer. Same for most lawyers.
I dont know how many doctors or lawyers this guy has met, but I'm guessing zero.
I have yet to find a single doctor or lawyer who could learn to code.
Parts per million - so it increased from practically zero to practically zero.
Practically zero, just like the thickness of the atmosphere relative to the size of Earth.
The sun is hurtling around the solar system at ~230 kps (relative to the local standard rest frame), but so is the asteroid.
Since both objects can be considered to be orbiting the milky way at the same speed, we generally consider that speed to be zero for the purposes of comparison, and only compare the two objects motion relative to each other.
Its actually very good news that CO2 is up. We should be hoping for ~1000ppm, which would make the earth absolutely lush and gardenlike.
The stock market is not a zero sum game. You invest in companies that have useful economic activity, and get a share of their profits as dividends.
Fair point, but there are a lot of large and influential companies that don't pay any dividends, because they invest their profits directly into growth and development. For example Nvidia.... well, they seem to pay 0.03 % of the current stock price, so essentially zero. The only economically sensible reason to invest in them is speculation; if there's some "useful economic activity" involved, the only way you'll get a piece of it is by buying low and selling high.
With cryptocurrency, the only thing you have is capital appreciation. There is no social utility. Even commodities like gold that also aren't income producing still have industrial uses, and are not purely speculative.
Cryptocurrencies have the same utility as banks, and many banks have been working on their own blockchains for years, for example JP Morgan: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffintechmagazine.com%2Far...
The stock market comparison is really just a side effect of what cryptocurrencies are all about, which is transferring money in ways that traditional banks can't do -- pseudonymously and independent of governments or businesses. Store of value and speculation is one thing, but you can't send NVDA shares (or gold, or tulips) across the globe with this kind of speed and freedom. Cryptocurrencies have value because they provide this service, you don't really pay just for the store of value.
If you were using iron you might be able to get similar effects by inductive heating once you delivered them to the target area; you absolutely could destroy cells in the immediate proximity that way
Inductive heating of gold nanoparticles is a thing in cancer research, e.g. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...
All money made from bitcoin was lost by someone else. The total value of winners and losers is identical. It isn't an investment where capital is used to make money. It is a legal Ponzi scheme were winners are paid for by the losers. It is just that some people don't realize they are the losers yet.
So it's just like the regular stock market.
I am tired of too many "geeks" thinking that the only information in a "document" is the text. Text is important, but so is formatting.
Math and science geeks know this, and that's why we use proper formatting tools such as LaTeX, not a glorified Paint.
> Google Deepmind has a definition for AGI,
Thats not a definition, its just a set of subjective heuristics for measuring. And its not even as useful as the basic turing test, which is a much more concise yardstick.
Definitions of AI all seem to come down to "we'll know it when we see it" which is the exact same thing as saying "we have no idea what it is"
The history of AI is all about modeling human intelligence, just like the models we have in natural sciences. If the model happens to be a very good match with reality, we may sometimes mistake one for the other. OTOH, they may be the same thing for all practical purposes.
I'm not sure if I have any deeper intelligence than a fancy language model. When we say that LLMs don't really understand things, then what exactly do we mean by understanding? In my personal definition, the meaning of something is simply the graph of its associated things. I consider something very meaningful if the graph has a lot of nodes and edges, and this also explains why simple things gain more meaning as we age.
Stupid question mayhap, but isn't whether this stuff is OR isn't copyright infringement still in the air, being battled out in the courts?
Well, if it's OK for a business to freely use copyrighted material for their commercial, for-profit purposes, then it throws out all arguments against non-commercial, non-profit "piracy". In other words, the court cases make a great test for the whole idea of copyright — they can't have their cake and eat it too.
I go on working for the same reason a hen goes on laying eggs. -- H.L. Mencken
