Brian_K_White

"Sure, but at what cost?"

At the appropriate and necessary cost.

A less costly new engine design or less costly engine swap procedure that fails is worse than no airplane at all. If it's cheaper and fails, we don't want it. It wasn't cheaper, it was even worse than expensive.

It's not hyperbolic all or nothing. Sure infinite cost is just as useless as infinite failure, but there is no reason to talk about infinite.

At what cost? Some. At some cost.

Then it's no longer a record.

It might be useful for your own memory since you can decide that you trust what was written. IE you trust that when it was written, you agreed at the time that it was an accurate summary, and later you only have to trust your earlier self.

But "My ai said that the site said ~essentially~ this on this date." is useless for anything else.

But it suggests an interesting idea. Maybe if we had some ai equivalent of trusted vetted accountable court reporters who write down notes and draw sketches in rooms where cameras aren't allowed.

That is purely second-hand reporting that we more or less trust, partly because there is usually more than one of them from competing venues reporting on the same event, partly because they are people with something to lose if they are unfaithful or even merely inept, partly because the facts are ultimately vettable with some effort for those who really need to.

There's no such ai yet. Even if one exists that could do the job, there is no consensus or basis for it, for everyone to recognize it as a trustworthy source of second hand reporting. But maybe if there were more than one and operated by different camps, they could grow to become recognized as a valid source of info.

It did not prove any such thing except in the meaningless pedantic technicality way. No reasonably rational person read that comment and thought they meant literally 100% not a single example. The existence of exceptions does not disprove anything. Everything has exceptions.

Numbers prove or disprove it. Which neither of us has. The fact that everything you showed even fits in a little comment like that compared to the scope of all software actually proves what a joke it was to even try to present this as any sort of argument.

"why do you keep saying MIT?" Oh FFS really? MIT, or BSD, is perfectly understandable shorthand for any of the mit/bsd/x11/etc in a general discussion like this. They are all of a class. How do you know? Because no one has attempted to discuss any fine points here that would make any of those any different from any of the others. You have to go out of your way to say they are different, and then cannot say in what way that matters or changes anything. So why do you yet again pretend an insignificant detail in any way affects the thrust of the argument?

Go ahead and substitute "MIT" with "BSD" or any of the specific "various BSD licences". Ok now that you did that, what changed? The argument was valid or invalid before, and the opposite now?

Stereo lithography using lasers, vs "sla" now has nothing stereo about it nor lasers, just an lcd screen that exposes a 2d slice.

Why it's better is a little complicated and maybe not all one-way.

Definitely there are a lot of difficulties inherent in the way the lcd type has to move the part for every layer and fight a lot of suction every time, damaging a film that needs to stay optically perfect, frothing up the resin with bubbles yet another source of optical defects.

Maybe the laser machines have their own problems but not having to move the part (or move it much less and in a different less violent way) and not having to physically abuse an optical part has to make some difference.

The existence of some contributions to MIT code does not disprove the assertion.

If you're fit to even be in this conversation then you have enough logic to know this, which makes the comment not merely in error but knowingly disingenuous.

What are the equivalent numbers for everything that was ever licenced GPL vs MIT? Neither of us knows but I defy you to even slightly attempt to hint that the world did not benefit from gpl code about a million times more than mit code as a direct result of their fundamental natures.

Why?

I could not care less about any refresh rate over 30.

You can care about it, but that just means it sounds like a differentiator to me, not something everyone should pay for just because you care about it.

You will have to somehow prove it if you would say that the panel and driver chip are all already ready to do 100+ hz for free by default, and are actually artificially limited, and that that artificial limitation doesn't come with some other advantage like battery life (allowing a smaller battery or less cost in some other way).

This. An iphone doesn't inspire anyone to do anything except maybe try to be a tiktoker by pointing it at themselves.

An execrable membrane keyboard machine with 1k of ram inspires you to somehow make a working DonkyKong.

The iphone can do anything but doesn't let the user do anything. It exists to sell you finished solutions to problems. You don't even get to choose the problems let alone the form the solution takes.

The 1k Sinclair can't do much, but doesn't impose any artificial limits or proscriptions either. It not only allows you do to anything you want but demands it. It offers practically no finished solutions.

No matter how limited the hardware, the options are actually infinite because you can do whatever you want with that hardware, and that open-endedness causes people to explore it and try to fill it.

If I'd had an iphone as a kid, maybe I'd still be the same kind of person and develop the same kinds of skills with the help of some other tools besides my iphone, but we'll never know. What happened was I had a 4k trs-80 that objectively sucked and yet absorbed 100% of my time, and none of that time was passive consumption.

It's not like it's what you spend most of your life's hours doing or anything like that.

What I would say, and perhaps what you actually mean, or if not then at least what you might now consider, is you shouldn't give anyone else the right to declare your sense of worth, including an employer.

Somehow you missed: Not all critiques are equally valid or valid at all.

and then

Somehow you missed: They did deal with it. The one they criticized did not.

Most industries consider 8% a mountain. More than their entire profit margin.

It doesn't matter how they give mice alzheimers, or any other condition. That's just part of controlling variables to test for one thing. It also doesn't matter that they were fed processed food rather than having to find things in the wild, unless the effect of diet was the specific thing they were examining.

So what? The world got more benefit from c64s and vic20s than all the iProducts together.

An Apple that made little more than the AppleII and ran it's course would have been a perfectly fine thing.

We would all be far richer for having 20 different companies in place of the Apple we got.

It's utterly unimportant. It's all research and all progress and all works towards our benefit eventually. The fact that an important discovery is still in the mouse stage and not yet in the human stage doesn't make it any less important or interesting, unless you are unutterably simple.

Put another way: the "in mice" doesn't matter because they are studying alzheimers, not mice. the mice are just the lab equipment of the moment. I don't care what kind of glassware or computers they use either.

Law is literally code, and xml in the sense that it attempts to define itself as well as it's payload, and everything you said was exactly the point.

What is a sandwich?

Nobody wants to land a "hit". They were hit. The hit was being shown something as though it were valuable, only to discover it is not.