teiferer

Of course it's wrong.

But then again, what did you expect? A high quality super reliable full USB 3.0 speed 7 port hub? For $5? That shouldn't pass anybody's smell test. There is a cost to things, and if the price seems too low then your alarm bells need to go off.

(I don't get why I'm downvoted. Maybe I should have been clearer the first time around.)

$5 USD. What did you expect?

Always surprises me when people pay essentially nothing for a product and then complain about quality.

Are there epaper versions of those round displays? Maybe I'm old fashioned.

I came here to say the same thing. Why on earth do we need a "modern browser" to show a clock?

It might come as a surprise to you, but "random anonymous users discerning quality" is exactly how this site operates and that's working pretty well.

It is not black or white. Many articles start with a human brainstorming the content, maybe writing a rough draft, and then AI filling gaps or just polishing the language. Maybe the author isn't a native speaker or has dylexia. It's hard to draw a line.

You can start by reading about Larry Johnson's whistleblower story.

It's interesting that our laws punish homicide with maximum criminal penalties, but the opposite (keeping someone alive against their wishes) seems to be assault and battery at worst, with much much lighter punishment.

It's not just the punishment but also how it's investigated / reported / charged. If somebody dies and there is just the slightest hint that another person was involved, by neglect or active help, police gets going right away. If somebody died "of natural causes" while suffering, or isn't even dead, just suffering, who is going to bring the charges? The suffering person won't. They are often unable to do so, that's why they are suffering in the first place. It's just an accepted part of being old and dying. Not even to speak of religious grounds (some of which consider suffering just being part of god's will).

Why haven't you?

It is (mentally) painful to think about that this life is going to end. And even more (mentally) painful to think about the consequences of a (physically) painful end. The mind goes to great lengths to avoid pain.

Plus, society doesn't exactly create a culture in which this kind of talk and preparations are encouraged.

The well meaning, naive proponents of legalisation of euthanasia have actually made things a lot harder for those who want it.

In your mind, what should have been done instead of legalizing it?

The cryonics industry is an unbelievable scam. You habe watched too much scifi my friend.

I think it's exactly this attitude which the article is about.

Of course I wish the best to whoever decides to fight. But fighting at any cost isn't the best advice.

Agreeing with your overall sentiment, but this caught my eye:

If I'm 80, I'm (somewhat) less concerned with length of life, and more concerned with quality. If I'm 50 that's a different equation

Why is that? Is quality less important at 50? Would you be more willing to endure suffering if you are younger? Why? I'm thinking that no matter age, people would generally like to avoid a painful death. Maybe it's because it feels more likely to "beat this thing" when you are younger, and then still potentially have decades ahead of you?

If anybody is confused what this is about, considering that cellular automata are a thing in CS: This is about cell biology.

While philosophers like to ignore costs

Another word for "cost" is "constraint" and philosophers spend a great amount of effort on thinking about the consequences of constraints. I therefore have no idea where you are coming from.

The "Chinese Room" has the rule book baked in from the start, costs were hidden.

What does the Chinese Room have to do with cell biology?

Easy. Let f be a continuous real function that is not differentiable somewhere. Let H be the truth value of the Riemann hypothesis. Define g(x) as "f(x) if not H else 0". Boom.

Reminds me of a homework exercise in theory of computation back in my uni days. Is the function "f(x) is 0 if H else 1" computable? Of course it is. It is either constant 0 or constant 1. We don't know which at this point, but f is a constant function in either case, so it is surely computable.

But maybe it shouldn't.

I visit a friend in Sweden the other day. Her house was built in the 80s, nothing fancy, a simple one family house. There is a ventilation system integrated. Every room has an inlet and the air is sucked out of the bathrooms and kitchen. Even has a heat exchanger. It's a pretty simple system: no cooling and it's not really used for heating except for pre-heating the incoming outside air with the energy in the exhaust air. But it exchanges the houses air multiple times a day. She told me this has been standard there for decades. A few ventilation pipes integrated into the houses construction and that's it. It's even mandatory in multi tenant houses to check air flow every few years.

It's not just the AC crazy US where HVAC is standard. It's just common sense to have such a system if you care about your health.

Unfortunately it will be hard for you to know how much of that effect is placebo. Unless you tested this with some kind of double-blind setup.

That article's message is spot on.

If your CO2 levels are that high then you should fix the HVAC system and get it up to code or lobby for fixing the code. In many countries, a full air exchange in any office space every X hours is mandatory. In other countries that's optional and they need to get their act together.

The semantics (or lack thereof) of C and C++ can make this difficult to actually test for because the compiler is allowed to say "test passed" to any input leading to UB.

I get what you are saying but does this actually apply to a test? If the code under test is in one compilation unit and the test harness in another and they are linked together then the UB optimization issue ends at the API boundary and can't possibly make the test pass ..?

The point I was waiting for but never came, so I'll make it here, is: Will LLMs be able to synthesize? Sure they can learn calculi. Lambda, differential, whatnot. But will Claude eventually be able to come up with a genuinely new formalism? A new calculus? Sth that allows us to do things we couldn't do before?

But it's quite straight forward to identify that too.

Though some people will train LLMs on it and if it's wrong then it will bias the training outcome towards that incorrectness.

But it's not the purpose of a blog post to ensure LLM training data has high quality.

P vs NP all over again.

Though this action drive (and the means he has) could be used for so much better. Humankind's top 10 problems don't include the issue of being confined to a single planet. That far down the list. The actual stuff gets you less attention from the tech crowd. Hunger. Poverty. Wars. Droughts. Mass extinctions. Climate change. Transmittable diseases. Cancer. Alzheimers. It's beyond me how one can reasonably argue (or defend somebody who does) that we really ought to focus on becoming multi-planetary.

A charitable response would be the desire to push the boundaries of what is (or is considered) possible.

A less charitable response would be the desire for attention and approval to fill some kind of deeply rooted inferiority complext.

The latter view would also illustrate a similarity to Trump.

I hope you are planning for a rotating base as a core feature.

The defense is of course that some people can do that - Musk did it, so why not?

If you think that Musk did his endeavors in order to become rich, you are likely mistaken.

Depends what kind of market you are going after. Mass market for end users, sure, your argument applies. But there are lots of other types too.

representative democracy can't work in a post-truth world either.

Truthful public debate is a central ingredient to democracy. If you don't have that then you are severely lacking in democratic qualities.

In other words, your statement is akin to saying "democracy can't work in an undemocratic environment", which is obvious.

If anything then the Brexit vote shows that democracy is lacking in the UK. Not having asked the people would not have made that better though.