wduquette

Tinderbox has been providing this kind of card-centric structure for a very long time now.

Remember that this is a Catholic church, the church the monks worship in. Its primary role is to be a house for the Holy Eucharist and a place for the worship of God. The devotion in its creation is part of that; the beauty it embodies is in aid of that. For the monks, the emotional resonance stems from all of that, but is not in fact the point.

I realize most folks here have a different world view; but in the end, this building has no point whatsoever apart from how the monks see it.

Who's to say they don't? I'd guess the monks are using CNC for standard elements, while statuary is done by hand. (Though possibly not by the monks.)

A compiler is expected to take a precise input and reliably produce a precise output, repeatably. If LLMs could do that they'd be compilers, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

TLDR: Autotune for tempo is now a thing.

Might you have trouble digging the foundation for such a tall building directly over the existing platform and tunnels?

Two of my kids have worked summers at the local theme part. The headline on this HN post sounds a lot more like what they experienced, i.e., smashed smartphones under the rollercoaster tracks, than it sounds like the actual paper.

Thanks!

Not really. Snit’s included in Tcllib; find the Tcllib docs and look at the Snit man page and Snit FAQ.

One can create amazing ergonomic scripting APIs in TCL; I've done that. One can also rapidly create horrors without end. I've seen that, too. With great power comes great responsiblity.

All of which I used many years to go to write "Snit", a quite nice object system for coding up Tcl objects and Tk widgets. Snit's a TCL library that takes a nice, easily readable description of your desired object type (the instance variables, the methods, and so forth), translates it immediately into standard TCL, and then evaluates that to define your type. Basically, it's a macro system for defining object types. (I say "object types" rather than "classes" because there is no inheritance.)

If it hasn't happened yet, it will happen in the future. There are so many failure modes, from trusting AI outputs too far (see the reports of the death of school children in Iran at the beginning of the war) to bad actors using AI for hacking to AI actors themselves doing unexpected things.

Organizations that don't get hacked, potentially losing data, costing large sums and money, and inconveniencing customers. They benefit. Remember them?

It's not even clear that the AI data centers required to run all this will be economically viable in the long term. But again, the interesting part of the article comes after the discussion of any new kind of economy.

The point of the article isn't that we will have no need to work; that remains an open question. The body of the article is exploring previous societies or segments of society in which no one needed to have a job, and how they lived their lives, as a way of pondering what a post-work world would look like. It's not particular pollyannic in tone once you get past the opening paragraphs.