ifdefdebug

Yeah I should have been more precise. What I was suggesting is that the behavior of the machine code will be always the same after compiling (assuming no compiler bugs).

Anyway, my work process is as follows: I have the agent write the code, and describe it's purpose etc. via comments so another session can later pick it up easily without me having to explain everything again. That's what I commit. Sometimes I even look at the code :)

What else could I commit? At the current state of the art, I could commit the whole natural language session that lead to the code, instead of the code. When I later check this out in a fresh environment (without the artifacts the LLM putted out), I'd just load the most recent version of the conversation as an initial prompt. Or I could want to check out the conversation at a point two months ago and rebuild the program from there.

Would that produce a program with exactly the same behavior? I don't know. But if it doesn't, the essay's argument is not moot. Not yet ...

What do you commit? As long as you commit high level code to your repo, you are still programming in that language. You don't commit machine code because you know it will be always the same after compiling. And it also doesn't matter that you are using very high level tools and basically don't ever look at or even understand your programs any more.

The spammer is the guy who runs the spamming program, not the program itself. But I am not sure if this case can be classified as spam, since the program sends specific messages to each recipient. It's still unsolicited mail though.

Not the answer to your question but... do your eyes a favor and use an e-ink device for reading.

You can thank me later (in 20 years).

No. Whenever you are done with all strings of length n, you still have to check all strings of length n+1. So that moment you identify by "eventually" can never be reached.

That's the problem, nobody is going to test the new software unless they have to, it will sit unused until the end of the pilot period as long as the old software is available too. Those people are no cs nerds who like testing new software, they are office people and learning new tools is stressful for (most of) them. I have been there.

> Do note that during the pilot phase, the new system runs in parallel with Microsoft 365 rather than replacing it outright. That's okay, I think.

Well I think it's not ok without at least a fixed deadline for removal of MS365. People usually have work to do and learning new ways to get it done means extra work, and (almost) nobody takes upon extra work if they don't have to. So the new software will be largely ignored by default.

But since the mass that entered the black hole continues to produce gravitational pull in our universe, the child universe must still be anchored within ours, at least gravitationally, and we should feel the pull from all the additional mass the new universe generates?

>... proposed that mass/energy in a parent universe collapsed to form a black hole (thus leaving the bubble of space-time that was the parent universe). It then “bounced” at the singularity, and expanded in a Big Bang, to form a new universe...

So any universe expanding within a black hole of ours has to exist with only the mass that fell into it? How would it produce black holes itself with so little mass?

Usually people trying to be helpful just post an archive link, instead of requesting others to do so...

You mean 1024 right?

minesweeper works seemingly until you find some number that don't sum up...

As long as trying to break that fiction has real-world consequences like jail time etc., it will work anyway.

> Is GPT5.6 Sol Superhuman?

This is not a simple y/n question. Computers have been superhuman at playing chess for decades now. Reading this article, I guess they are superhuman at understanding code now as well.

And to keep around a concurrent browser with full adblock abilities so they can cripple their own without too much of an outcry.