Bratmon

Push factors and pull factors work together far more effectively than either do on their own.

> Your example on the other hand I didn't find. I didn't find anyone claiming that two questions are duplicate of one another in different programming languages unless the language is not relevant.

Did... Did you just mentally mark my comment as a duplicate question and copy/paste an unrelated answer?

Comments are not for extended discussion. The important relevant information that was here has been moved to a confusing different page where it will never be seen again.

The percentage of questions closed as duplicates that actually

1. Were actually duplicates of existing questions

2. That had a correct, up to date answer

was definitely less than 1%

Have you ever read its sequel?

If you haven't, it's pretty bad and definitely a factor in why the original didn't have very much cultural impact.

People have been saying that CAs are a bad idea since CAs were first proposed.

The problem is that those same people tend to disappear as soon as you ask "So what should we do instead?"

As the percentage of technology controlled by people actively using it to do evil increases, so does the net value to society of a trivially-expliotable zero-day.

During runtime research? Maybe, but most of what an LLM says doesn't come from runtime research.

During training? Not a chance.

I admit "We don't have to comply with the standard if we don't claim to comply with the standard" is tautologically true.

But it does kind of support the whole "GCC C is not standard C" point.

Yeah, how DARE people under 40 want somewhere to live!

This entire article seems to be based on an assumption that the cost of batteries will go down 33% over the next 10 years because demand is so high, but costs of gas turbines will go up over the next 10 years because demand is so high.

Neither of these assumptions are based on anything other than "That's the number we had to put in to the model to get the conclusion we want".

That's straight-up incorrect. A massive new investment is by definition expense-neutral.

Negative cash flow from investing means that some prior investment has been shown to be worth far less than they paid for it.

I think you're underestimating how much of this is driven by the fact that YouTubers get paid by the watch-minute.

I have some bad news: Playing the new game will not make you 14 with no responsibilities again, no matter how good a job they do making it.