jasamer

> Another thing is that trying to take away creative jobs from humans and giving it to robots while the menial ones (like data entry, manual labor, household work, etc.) are still being done by humans is an insult to humanity itself.

I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon. LLMs may be able to somewhat compete with people who are average at these creative tasks, but those are not the people whose work most people consume. We listen to music and read books by people who are very good at creating music/writing, and I don't see LLMs competing with those people. And even if they were able to compete, they'd still miss the "human" element - eg., I'm probably not going to a concert if there are no humans performing.

AI will expand to be able to do more boring, menial tasks. Writers and musicians (and other creative people) will probably be amongst the last who loose their jobs to AI.

I don't think a simulation needs to simulate anything real. Eg. if I have a program that runs Conway's game of life, that would be also be a simulation, but there's nothing "real" it references against.

In other words, the universe simulating ours might work completely differently, and some beings there are just testing how different laws of physics (i.e. ours) work out.

Afaik what makes fusion hard is maintaining the conditions that allow fusion to occur. Because of this, it’s quite safe - if anything goes wrong, it’ll just stop working.

Probably, but the amount would be tiny. ITER is trying to generate 500 megawatt from a half-gram of hydrogen.

This animation was super smooth on even the slowest iPad.

The point of it is: they were going to do a skeuomorphic animation, and they put the effort in to do it right. It's a level of polish that I really appreciate, even though it isn't really necessary for anything.

The page turn animation was truly excellent. I have seen a few other apps/sites try to copy it, some of them did it pretty well. But one detail I’ve never seen anyone else do: the text of the curled page is “distorted” in 3D, as one would expect of a real page. The closer the letters are to the part of the page that’s orthogonal to the screen, the more the are squished.

It’s an effect that’s quite complicated to do. You need to put the page on a 3D cone and render that. I have quite a bit of experience with UI kit animations, but I don’t know how I would do that one.

It’s a question about ethics, I think it’s implied that legal consequences are not part of the consideration.

But even when including possible jail time in your consideration: if you think that saving two lives at the cost of another is worth it, surely a life saved is worth more than a jail sentence?

And raw potato vs cooked potato?

I don't think #1 matters, because it runs again once it's in a valid state again. Your test will fail while in an invalid state, but that's to be expected.

As the author explained in another comment, it initially generates the code coverage for all tests. When code is changed, only the tests that cover that code are rerun.

This tool doesn't run all the tests, only the ones affected by the code changes since the last run. It figures out which tests to run by initially running all tests, and storing the code coverage of each test.

It doesn't need to rely on "test change likelihood" - if a code change is outside of the code coverage of the test, it doesn't affect the test.

But the bullet will still hit the plane following you at roughly 1700mph (you could say, the plane will crash into the bullet at that speed, but it‘s the same result), because it‘s also moving at Mach 3.

Factorio's visuals support that take. I feel bad when the trees next to my coal power plant go brown and then die, and the initially beautiful blue lake next to the spawn point turns into a disgusting brown-green. In the later game, dropping nuclear bombs on the aliens leave permanent marks on the map, always reminding you of your crimes when you build more factory on the scorched earth.

Touring completeness is about accurately simulating any Turing machine. Not approximately simulating one (what would that even mean?), or simulating just some of them.

When we say something is Turing complete, there’s always an implicit “if it ran on a computer with unlimited memory” assumption that comes with it, because no computer with limited memory can ever simulate all Turing machines. You can always construct a Touring machine that makes a given computer run out of memory.

So technically, no real computer or computer program is Turing complete, or able to accurately simulate any Turing machine. The whole thing is an irrelevant technicality though, as A) we have so much memory available that we might as well treat it as unlimited and B) touring completeness is a theoretical property - if you prove it for something like python type hints, that proof won’t assume any memory limitations, ie. it’ll assume the computer the thing runs on has infinite memory. The proof is valid even though no such infinite computer actually exists.