sethev

Surely he meant their work. Dealing with deep issues of life and death in his work didn’t require him to be serious all the time about every topic in his own life.

Correct - it's even weirder, pardons can be given for a categories or even just a blanket pardon for any crimes that might have been committed. There aren't a lot of limits on it.

It was a joke and apparently the person who wrote the code thought that would be funny. execl actually replaces the current running process (the compiler) with the new one, so this very much does not doing anything useful.

In the future we may need to go to the thinknasium to stay sharp. There was a time when, for almost everyone, it would have sounded silly to go to a special place to stay fit/strong.

I think the onus is on you to explain why Turing would publish something he didn’t intend people to take seriously. It seems like an odd claim. Perhaps you mean he didn’t intend it to be interpreted the way it was in popular culture?

I don’t accept the point of the article and it does in fact claim to be making a point about intelligence

Fair - yes, it is ironic that his point was closer to "we can't possibly know/define whether a machine is intelligent" but somehow it got turned into "Turing's test will tell us when machines are intelligent".

Yes, the Turing test has been misunderstood for a long time. Turing published it, though - it wasn't some offhand comment he made and it wasn't intellectually lazy.

The challenge here is in trying to decide whether LLMs are intelligent or have a mind. Famously, the criteria for intelligence seem to slip with each advancement in technology. But going back to Turing, his test was actually more carefully phrased than we remember: he said that when machines could pass the test, the question of whether they are intelligent would become moot. That seems to be what we're actually seeing: if people can't tell the difference, it kind of won't matter whether they're "truly intelligent" or not.

Crows are fascinating creatures. My wife read that they will chase hawks and eagles away, so she started putting food out for the crows near the tree where they gather (we have chickens and ducks that we don't want the hawks near).

Now they bring trinkets as gifts and leave them near the tree. We also had a crow in the past that would make barking noises when it saw our dogs and freak them out. I'm convinced it was messing with them.

I'm just guessing but observability is often looking at small slices of hot data and then there's a vast set of cold data that is occasionally needed. Sounds like NVMe is for the hot data cache and object storage is for cold data.

Yes, agree. These are very sane defaults and match what I use..

Interesting idea - I like seeing a list of pet-peeves followed by a proposal for a straightforward way to have a set of 'alternative defaults' that remains backwards compatible. If you don't want to opt in, don't run the new PRAGMA edition = 2026.

Too often it's just a list of issues and a wish that everyone else will change.

In (mild) defense of SQLITE_BUSY - busy_timeout just tells sqlite to sleep and retry up to the timeout when it receives SQLITE_BUSY. It seems like a sensible default for a library to leave that up the calling code - which may have something else it could do while it waits. However, that logic often gets missed!

I don't think it's a knock on the original prediction to say it didn't turn out to be true. In fact, at the time it probably felt like a pretty conservative prediction. That being said, if you think back to the year 2000, we were pretty far from building such a machine at that time.

To me it's an interesting lesson in how hard it is to predict technology advances which still applies to our own predictions of the future.