appplication

Goodness, yes. I’m not even that old yet but just no longer being possessed by the relentless drive of my 20s makes life much more peaceful.

Lmao! If someone is asking the difference between big and little o notation this is absolutely not the right way to clarify it.

If you were joking then maybe you got me

> Women didn't like it and left.

I appreciate the rose-tinted, high-agency historical take, but I think the factors that led to computer science/programming becoming male-dominated were largely external to and independent of the preferences of women themselves.

This is an earnest question but is that really true for reactivity and state management? Of course with vanilla is all things are technically possible, but I feel like last I checked this wasn’t something well supported without really knowing what you’re doing.

Was this in violation of the Netherlands constitution or just not explicitly illegal in Amsterdam? I don’t know the details or the incident you’re referencing, but there is generally a distinction.

Ingesting? Presumably Kafka. Analyzing? Presumably a fairly large analytics org.

The problem itself does not matter. If the nature of any solution relies on willful global compliance, it’s not going to be very effective at whatever it’s trying to solve.

This implies the solution is every actor in the world willfully complying which doesn’t sound very realistic if you ask me.

Similar to saying world hunger would be solved in everyone who could donated $100 to those in need. Sure it may be true but foot stomping about why isn’t it organically happening is missing the point.

Having recently worked at Apple on the software side, my general experience was that it was fiefdom driven, there is no internal standardization on quality or process. Low level teams compete on ideas and careful politicking usually wins over quality or merit.

For AI, there were top down directives to find new ways to experiment with and incorporate into core products and processes, but as you went down the management chain, management became more conservative. First and second line managers were strongly incentivized to keep their products, roadmaps, and interfaces stable and predictable by similarly conservative stakeholders. And as such, they were generally unwilling to officially dedicate much effort to AI other than the minimum “look at how much we’re using Claude”.

In particular due to the lack of central tooling, any team trying to do much with AI essentially had to reinvent much of the stack themselves. So even small projects were largely untenable due to inevitable required scope creep.

Yes, my dog loves this. I think there’s essentially no scenario I could imagine a human could eat this save treating it like hard candy or rehydrating extensively before consuming. It really is extremely hard.

It’s a bit funny how normalized this is. Surely being more clear would provide some market advantage?

Or perhaps not, if folks who need a Tribble for their Fork achieve instant enlightenment upon reading the marketing copy.

The challenge is not will robots fix toilets but will the economics support it if we end up with most of the world unemployed and without careers. Yes of course we can hand wave basic income and government intervention but reading the room (e.g. last 70+ years of US labor and capital trends) it’s not the most likely outcome, even if it is the most game theory optimal for all.

Realistically the outcome of highly capable advanced AI is an economic dark age more than anything else.

I think this is what obstacles on the path to AGI look like now. It’s random things that would be obvious to a human but are unrepresentative in how an AI views the world and therefore it suddenly becomes seemingly incapable, despite having basically superpowers for proximal work.

I don’t mean that to say AGI is here or easy or necessarily that close but it’s likely going to feel like one thing after another until one day most of these things that make you think “how could something so capable be that dumb” are largely solved.

Really, 100% correct? Your premise isn’t wrong, but the practical reality of the ruling (without further nuance) has been fairly catastrophic for democracy, in that it completely sidesteps campaign finance limits, which exist for a very good reason.