madsbuch

Based on the image with the reflection, the photographer is probably closer to 12 - so there is indeed a chance they are still alive.

The meaning of copyright is changing as these images are being divorced from their physical medium.

It can be read that the film was found and sold - a practice that was probably fine when an image had a physical manifestation.

But yes, we are at juncture now with copyrights, as more and more things are virtual.

Fair enough.

Now, can you justify your sentiment? Which was what I asked about?

(Or is it more fun to just cycle around in indifferent ontological ramblings?)

Answer to the edit:

I am not upset by the numbers. I am asking how you will ensure a society with equality and democracy under your proposed system.

In particular, taxes are an effective way to ensure equality - something that you are probably seeing in the numbers you refer.

In the US we see that trump is increasing taxes on consumers (Tariffs) while lifting taxes from the highest earners.

To cut to the core: I am asking if you are pro oligarchies? and if not, how do your propose that we ensure the equality needed to uphold a democracy?

Common source, great!

First, you seems to conflate "free markets" (Whatever free means here?) with decentralized spending. How does that make sense?

And more importantly: If we can agree that a democracy ought to be an aspiration for a society, and a functioning democracy requires some minimum level of equality, how will you ensure that under your "free market"?

Numbers do lie - it would be nice to have a breakdown of this.

Maybe the difference, 16% points, is what affords the European a fair treatment upon illness where half of that is "shareholder value" in the US.

Feel free to link the study you used so we don't just have to trust some internet rando.

The first duty of your documentation is to be complete and correct.

It is probably unrealistic to expect documentation to be complete as it is not clear where the border on inclusiveness goes.

Take eg. AWSs node packages. Here they spend words recommending using async / await which IMHO is firmly outside the scope of library docs.

I am curious on what you feel is missing? is it elements concrete to the piece of software you use, or is it pieces that can be deemed expected knowledge from a professional software developer.

In the world predating didn't have single factories serving hundreds of millions of people - such a concentration of risk very much merits a FDA.

It is all about risk.

FDA enables civilization to grow above a certain threshold.

There is a concept I'd recommend you to get familiar with: Systemic risk.

Nobody really cares about you and your sandwich.

But whenever we introduce single point of risk into the society these needs to be managed.

Fair enough, you are personally responsible and don't eat the sandwich.

The rest of the US was not.

- at least you retain your right to claim "What did I say".

Yep, let's wing serving 400 million sandwiches - whatever the risk that the US population dies of salmonella or listeria.

Anyways, one of the things about growing up is realizing that there is more to the world than just innovation.

Why shouldn't it apply to larger contracts?

There is a very easy way to get around such a requirement from legislation: Just call it licensing instead of a purchase.

The need for such a legislation is corporations reckless use of the words "purchase" and "buy" for goods that have been licensed.

That is wrong - while you need the insurance to be eligible, the governments finances most of the unemployment payout. It is a hybrid model.

The insurance premium is also entirely tax deductible and nowhere enough to cover the scheme - the scheme which is highly regulated, well, because the government pays for it.

We have this in Denmark where you can get up to 2 years of unemployment benefit - also when you quit yourself (you will get a one-month quarantine, though).

Denmark has a 2.9% unemployment rate: https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/arbejde-og-indkomst/be...

I don't entirely know how that compare to the US.

It seems like you fully agree with the parent.

I also agree, that the author probably not meant to establish an axiom: The axiom being established, while not having any support right now, does seem like something we can reduce in the future. The author also uses the word "currently" in their axiom, which contradicts axioms (or is temporal axioms a thing?).

I think the author merely meant to establish the scene for the article. Something I truly appreciate.

As I wrote, I appreciate that the author wrote it out as they did. It might be reasonable in the context of the article. But fixing it as an axiom just makes the discussion boring (for me).

If you believe LLM have qualia, you also believe a ...

You use the word believe twice here. I am actively not talking about beliefs.

I just realise, that the author indeed gave themselves an out:

... currently computers do not really understand words.

The author might believe that future computers can understand words. This is interesting. Questions being _what_ needs to be in order for them to understand? Could that be an emergent feature of current architectures? That would also contradict large parts of the article.

Sorry, I was too fast to answer to see that.

i am not sure where this comment fits as an answer to my comment.

Firstly, do understand that I am not saying that LLMs (or ChatGPT) do understand.

I am merely saying that we don't have any sound frameworks to assess it.

For the rest of your rant: I definitely see that you don't derive any value from ChatGPT. As such I really hope you are not paying for it - or wasting your time on it. What other people decide to spend their money on is really their business. I don't think any normal functioning people have the expectation that a real person is answering them when they use ChatGPT - as such it is hardly a fraud.

There is an immensely strong dogma that, to my best knowledge, is not founded in any science or philosophy:

        First we must lay down certain axioms (smart word for the common sense/ground rules we all agree upon and accept as true).
        
        One of such would be the fact that currently computers do not really understand words. ...

For articles like this to be interesting, this can not be accepted as an axiom. It's justification is what's interesting,

Using types ;)

Of course your code should live up to requirements and be correct, for it to be good - The requirements can also be performance requirements.

If you have a list of maximally 10 elements that needs to be sorted and you opt for quicksort over bubble sort in a context where bubble sorts time/space guarantees perfectly solved the requirements, well, then you absolutely wrote bad code.

This is what a more senior developer understands, where a junior would jump in and write worse code.

I think the critics (myself included) perfectly understood that point.

What they really mean is that good programmers should think ahead and craft their code with an eye minimizing future modifications.

The critique is exactly that this can not happen in real world projects because you can only speculate what requirements for the code base is down the road.

To counter this I usually apply two princinples:

1. Occam's razor - implement the simplest solution

2. Write code that is readable and understandable, so it is easier to change the code with the requirements.

The last being completely opposite to what the author of the article thinks.

The worst thing I can think of is somebody needlessly DRYing up a code base prematurely - this is in my opinion a junior behavior.

Exactly my thoughts.

The reason why good code is code that is easy to read, is because products evolve, and so does the code.

Suddenly the taxonomy of that enum starts to shift, and the name that was perfect yesterday does not make sense tomorrow.

These changes happen gradually and a basic acceptance of the code base not being on par with the product understanding is necessary in order to have any kind of velocity on not only spend time refactoring.

I still rely heavily on principles acquired from courses on Software Architecture and PL studies as a part of my CS degree - and I can definitely see a difference in how people organise their code with same tenure but no schooling.

in applications requiring accuracy

You have it right there. There is a large set of applications that does not require accuracy. These applications will benefit hugely from LLMs. Examples include recommender systems, knowledge extraction, transformation, etc. all in domains where accuracy does not matter too much.

In particular, instruct aligned LLMs makes it very easy to integrate ad hoc machine learning into an application.

This is really nice to see! I asked about that feature almost 2 years ago as we wanted to use Supabase for everything. Unfortunately there were no plans back then to support it, so we had to use another provider for object storage.

Congrats on the release!

you have many ways you can solve the issues without ristricting free speach.

you can ristrict how you can monitize a product - I think the problem would be much smaller if you have to pay a price congruent to the value you get. Only a few people would pay for Facebook.

you can make the platforms resposinsible for what is published on them and enforce that. they would never scale this much.

And just like the Supreme Court wrote 30 years ago, the answer is the same today: if you don't like these products and feel they are negative, then don't use them.

We have already collectively agreed that this is not an argument. That is why there are agencies like the FDA, etc.

A consumer is happy as long as they can run Edge on their computer and log in to Facebook. They will not complain about windows on ARM either.

However, we can definitely agree that certain sectors will struggle more with Windows on ARM. My intuition is that a lot of really conservative industries run on windows. Some with a bespoke program for Windows 95 they still keep running on XP.

The first year or two were a mess with support for Apple. I remember as late as 2023 to struggle with running certain, modern, tech stacks on the MBP M1.

It is only within the last year that I feel like the ecosystem has entirely cought up.

Obviously MS will benefit from this, if they are able to run, eg., arm64 docker images etc.

You are both technically correct - the best form of correct.

It seems like raspberry pi maxes out at 8GB of RAM, which effectively will not allow me to work. I also do not plan run Google's OS for chromebooks, and it seems like installing other OSs is a hassle on the chromebooks.

In essence I want the specs of a MBP M3 Max with 128GB of ram, just running PopOS.

Currently I can run PopOS using Parallels, which runs surprisingly well!

What I want is a computer with 64-128GB RAM, a really fast CPU and a coprocessor that does parallel computations (let's call it an AI chip like everybody else) so that I can run ollama / complex Elixir live books etc.

So far the Mac books fit the bill. But I really like PopOS and would really adore to run it on some beefy ARM laptop.

Laptops, sorry, not Desktops.

And I would also want something that performs better than Raspberry Pie.

Does this mean we will soon see ARM based Linux Desktops?