habinero

QM is a mathematical framework that started with "ok but what if matter does act like a wave" and then throwing the classical wave equation at the problem.

A lot of weird predictions pop out if you do that. Those predictions (where we can test them) turn out to be true.

This kicked off an argument about what exactly this means in a physical sense and a hundred years later, it's still going.

Both of them are interpretations. We have no reason to believe one over the other.

Sure you can. There is no predictability and no fundamental laws in a purpose-built universe run by an omnipotent creator because ultimately the creator can do anything they please.

Not to get all reddit atheist here, but as far as we can tell, the universe is predictable and explainable by fundamental mathematical laws. (We don't see, for example, unexplainable violations of conservation as Michael Landon pops in and out of existence.)

This could mean there is no god or they don't interfere or whatever, but in any case it's pretty good evidence that we can reason about how the universe works.

That's about as good as you can know anything. Beyond that is the "Are you a brain in a jar" kinds of philosophical arguments that are fun when you're 21 and get old after.

> Many worlds is just bare bones QM.. If any other theory is proposed, it should be falsifiable

Many worlds isn't falsifiable, either. There's no reason to accept one over the other.

There's no "building on existing AI" because those two technologies have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

No. You'd be competing with multiple mature cloud services plus Github Enterprise Cloud/self-hosted plus multiple open source options.

I don't need or want a dedicated support engineer for my VCS, I need it to integrate with all the bullshit products I already have, tick off the compliance and governance checkboxes for the suits, give me controls so SWEs do less dumb shit and above all, not be something I have to think about except at contract renewal time.

I'm just not going to trust a rando to run all that for me and get it right, especially not at that price point.

Hahahaha absolutely not. There's a lot of carefully staged demos that are good for separating the gullible from their money, but we are nowhere near anything you're talking about.

No, liability for duty of care, not for outcomes. If a lawyer gives you legal advice, you can absolutely go after them if that advice was incorrect or made up. They carry a lot of insurance for a reason.

I use them too on occasion and have for years. It really is only on occasion, my last prescription of 15 pills lasted over a year. I've had several times where I used them for 3-4 days.

I don't think self control has anything to do with it. Part of it is probably genetic -- I don't have a family history of addiction but a lot of people do.

The other part is I use them for a reason, I like having them available for that reason, and honestly I don't find them that fun to take outside of those reasons. I just feel kinda drunk.

Yeah, I use them, like, one or two days in a row every six months. They're a godsend for getting out of a bad state or for getting through something difficult. Sometimes you just need to function and do the thing.

You can absolutely take them responsibly.

The kinds of dams involved in these projects aren't doing anything useful. They're mostly small and obsolete and/or at the end of their lifespan. They were generally built before we had a power grid.

You can't just leave them, they'll eventually fail and it costs way too much to bring them up to code and maintain them.

This is one of the very rare "everyone wins" stories. Environmentalists, cities, water districts and wildlife all come away better.

You can't wave away liability that easily lol, and no, you can't assign it to a chatbot.

Law is extremely unforgiving. In general, you get one shot at it, and if you lose, that's it. No do overs, and the consequences can be life-altering. That's why so many things in law are the way they are, and why it's illegal to practice law without a license.

Because the stakes are so high, lawyers are also vehicles for liability. If you ask one for advice and you lose because that advice was wrong, you can at least recoup damages from them.

You lose all those protections with a chatbot.

I don't know who you're arguing with, my dude, because I agree with you lol

I was allowing it for the sake of argument, because, yeah, any app of any reasonable size is not simple.

I don't think posting like Elliot Rodgers helps, my dude.