Lmao, he’s going to campaign on stopping the war in Iran, isn’t he?

What a great rebuttal, a no followed by a condescending insult.

Don’t forget that people who can make the decisions can also bet.

I dunno, I find it hard to respect laws intending to protect people from their own choices, especially when the majority of people can enjoy the thing (or just ignore it on their own) without any problems.

Try to idiot-proof the world and the world just comes up with a better idiot.

Thinking you can say something and avoid it being challenged by adding shit like “anything you can argue against it doesn’t matter” is the insufferable thing on display here. Almost as insufferable as another person chiming in about how insufferable those who won’t just take that at face value are.

Is that offer still open to friendly nations? As I understand it, they have been mining the strait, and things just seem a bit chaotic to mine it in a way that leaves a safe and known path, plus how to communicate that path to those they want to let through while denying those they don’t. Unless the minea are remote instead of proximity, but I think part of the point was to make the embargo passive so that carpet bombing the area wouldn’t be an effective counter.

Stop when you feel like it, just like any other verification method. You don’t really prove that there are no problems with software development, it’s more of a “try to think of any problem you can and do your best to make sure it doesn’t have any of those problems” plus “just run it a lot and fix any problems that come up”.

An LLM is just another approach to finding potential problems. And it will eventually say everything looks good, though not because everything is good but because that happens in its training data and eventually that will become the best correlated tokens (assuming it doesn’t get stuck flipping between two or more sides of a debated issue).

They might have thought they could hold the world economy hostage to force other counties to act. Or the whole wanting things to get better is an act and the economic disruption is the whole point.

It helps in the sense of once you’ve looked at code enough times, you can stop really seeing it. So many times I’ve debugged issues where I looked many times at an error that is obvious in hindsight but I just couldn’t see it before that. And that’s in cases where I knew there was an issue somewhere in the code.

Or for optimization advice, if you have a good idea of how efficiency works, it’s usually not difficult to filter the ideas it gives you into “worthwhile”, “worth investigating”, “probably won’t help anything”, and “will make things worse”.

It’s like a brainstorming buddy. And just like with your own ideas, you need to evaluate them or at least remember to test to see if it actually does work better than what was there before.

Though on that note, I don’t think having an LLM review your code is useless, but if it’s code that you care about, read the response and think about it to see if you agree. Sometimes it has useful pointers, sometimes it is full of shit.

Yeah, they don’t do analysis but can fool people because they can regurgitate someone else’s analysis from their training data.

If could just be matching a pattern like “I have a network problem with <symptoms>. Your issue is <problem> and you need to <solution>.” Where the problem and solution are related to each other but the problem isn’t related to the symptoms, because the correlation with “network problem” ends up being stronger than the correlation with the description of the symptoms.

And that specific problem could likely be solved just by adding a description of that process to the training data. But there will be endless different versions of it that won’t be fixed by that bandaid.

Oh if the alliance is non-nato then it means he might honour it or something?

You know what’s going on inside the large companies that are hoping to cash in on the AI thing? All workers are being pushed to use AI and goals are set that targets x% of all code written be AI-generated.

And AI agents are deceptively bad at what they do. They are like the djinn: they will grant the word of your request but not the spirit. Eg they love to use helper functions but won’t necessarily reuse helper functions instead of writing new copies each time it needs one.

Here’s a test that will show that, with all the fancy advancements they’ve made, they are still just advanced text predictors: pick a task and have an AI start that task and then develop it over several prompts, test and debug it (debug via LLM still). Now ask the LLM to analyse the code it just generated. It will have a lot of notes.

An entity using intelligence would use the same approach to write the code as it does to analyze it. Not so for an LLM, which is just predicting tokens with a giant context window. There is no thought pattern behind it, even when it predicts a “thinking process” before it can act. It just fits your prompt into the best fit out of all the public git depots it was trained on, from commit notes and diffs, bug reports and discussions, stack exchange exchanges, and the like, which I’d argue is all biased towards amateur and beginner programming rather than expert-level. Plus it includes other AI-generated code now.

So yeah, MS did introduce bugs in the past, even some pretty big ones (it was my original reason for holding back on updates, at least until the enshitification really kicked in), but now they are pushing what is pretty much a subtle bug generator on the whole company so it’s going to get worse, but admitting it has fundamental problems will pop the AI bubble, so instead they keep trying to fix it with bandaids in the hopes that it’ll run out of problems before people decide to stop feeding it money (which still isn’t enough, but at least there is revenue).

Oh they might be intending to capture that strait to minesweep it and open it back up. Which will probably continuously cost lives of those holding it while boats get targeted by drones anyways.

Yeah, though getting useful information out of documentation is a skill on its own that not everyone possesses. But I agree that “it’s in the manual” can be useful, especially these days with how common useless manuals are.

Like I just bought a motherboard and the paper manual it came with was useless, like it didn’t even differentiate between installing Intel or AMD coolers, so clearly didn’t contain much specific information for that particular board.

The online manual had more useful information, unless you want more info about uefi settings, where you’ll be lucky if it has full information of uefi options for the release uefi, let alone the latest version.

It was a different commenter, though I also like snacking on dark chocolate chips. Baker’s chocolate is also good, but the consistency of the squares isn’t great for snacking.

I just read it as a tip for how to get chocolate anyways, even if all the chocolate bar makers stop using it. The chocolate-like but cheaper stuff they are using instead of chocolate sounds more like the dustbowl/depression era tricks to enjoy food while you can’t afford it.

Though part of my perspective is from getting my cooking to a level where store bought prepared stuff is just the easy/convenient option, not the high quality one (for health or taste). I also love dark chocolate and prefer the high cocoa content ones over must chocolate bars.

And I’m confused about how you found anything in that comment dystopian. Though I’m assuming that name I didn’t recognize is a brand name for an actual chocolate producer. Hopefully it isn’t a brand name for something similar to chocolate but not lol.

Yeah, I think sucralose is the only one that doesn’t taste awful to me. Like I’ve always been skeptical of the defense of aspartame because it tastes like something I shouldn’t be eating. I was looking forward to stevia back when it got popular, but it also has that taste (I’m guessing from leftover solvent, since it’s not water soluable like sugar).

There’s plenty of ways to make things taste great without relying so heavily on sweetness. I hate the western food industry’s obsession with it along with the capitalist obsession with selling as much as possible, because it’s resulted in the less sugar I’ve wanted to see instead meaning the sugar is replaced with other chemicals that taste sweet (and “chemically”).

And I doubt safety studies looked at anything beyond “does it so obviously cause issues that we’ll be sued the moment we try to sell this?”

Knowing apple, at that price point, performance is going to suuuuuck.

It’s like people who reply “rtfm”, except these people actually think they are helping, while the rtfm replier just thinks the question asker isn’t worthy of their knowledge (or wants to hide that they don’t know while maintaining their “I am wise” persona).