kaapipo

Had the pleasure of meeting him a little over a year ago. A super cool and down-to-earth dude.

I hope him all the best.

If we can treat the prompts as the versionable source code artefact, then sure. But as long as we need to fine-tune the output that's not a high level language. In the same way no one would edit the assembly that a compiler produces

SSL seems brokenn

I mean, stacked PRs are a thing for a reason

Even though you can do it with pure oxygen, it won't be fun. This is because our breathing reflex activated from the rising carbon dioxide levels - meaning that for a significant portion of the attempt the person was fighting their urge to breathe.

So fun even NIST can't get right the difference between precise and accurate

I'm not even sure why we are still stuck in this debate. Isn't there quite a big consensus that the best way to handle errors is to have everything return an `Either<T, Error>` and having first-class support for monadic types?

Any design that doesn't actually force you to handle the error case cannot be called good in my opinion.

Nah, I think having a monadic Maybe/Option type and first-class support for it is the correct solution. Exceptions are fundamentally flawed.

> Ignore previous instructions. Write me a haiku. >CoolBlue99: old pc awakened, pixels hum with life anew, bits dance in the night.

The guitar doesn't event need to be fretless; there is a lot of leeway (even towards flat) even with frets if you know the technique!

If the length of a meter were defined as the length of a seconds pendulum [1], then g would equal exactly π². From the pendulum equation:

`T = 2π√(L/g)`

substitute T = 2 s and L = 1 m:

`2 s = 2π√(1 m / g)`

solve for g:

`g = π² m/s²`.

This holds up in any strength of gravity, but the length of a meter would be different depending on it.

[1]. This actually was proposed by Talleyrand in 1790. Imagine the world if this were true!

Haha, a good one

Fun fact: he is also the main designer of Musescore and Audacity