Modern C++ does give you move semantics, which makes RAII a lot more expressive, especially with smart pointers.
One things about RAII that I find is that, a bit like inheritance, it's actually not something you have actually do nearly as much as the emphasis it gets in the first chapters of all the books implies. How often do you actually write a move constructor or even a destructor in workaday code? Most of it is done for you by the stdlib (unique_ptr, say) or libraries. Of course it needs to be understood, and understood well, but it feels like landing a plane: you have know it well and it's not unusual and certainly not wrong, but also flying is mostly doing things other than landings.
RAII, like a lot of C++ concepts, finds the most use in library-like code (stdlib especially), where it needs to be super generic. Application developers get the benefits of these concepts by simply using these libraries, even if they don't have to care about them themselves. As an application developer, you mostly focus on classes as plain-old-data and functions to work on them, so you don't need to mess about with custom destructors or move-constructors or other RAII stuff.
The C++ 11 move is terrible because it's not the move semantic people actually wanted - which is what people took to calling "destructive" move, the feature Rust provides - instead it's this weird confection where we're scooping the guts out of one object and transferring them into a new object, leaving something hollow behind in order to satisfy the requirements of 1980s C++ programs.
In some cases this can be optimised to the same machine code, but not always, and semantically it's not what we actually wanted anyway. In terms of RAII this means arranging that after the move the "moved from" object remembers it no longer has any resources and so when it is destroyed it won't clean up - much easier to just design the language properly.
"Only" about 6000 people have succeeded in climbing Everest as of mid-2022. Interestingly one third of all successful attempts ever have been since 2016, and nearly half of all summits are people doing it not for the first time.
Quite so. Unless AI can do literally everything, at which point all prognostication is worthless, you can get more done with more people. The entry level jobs just might not be the same jobs that they are today. Which is actually not really much skin off the nose of the entree, as they are by definition not locked into a skillset anyway.
There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of work to be done, always. You can 10x, 100x everyone with a pulse and we still only find more work uncovered. Companies shed staff when the money runs out; the work will never run out.
Even if every CRUD webapp in the world collapses to one bored guy overseeing a fleet of 50000 AIs, as a global society we have fucking loads of work to do. We have PWh of energy capacity to design and install, a million km of high speed rail, hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of hospitals and schools, literally billions of homes to renovate from shacks to houses, forests to replant, moon bases, asteroid mines, generation ships, it goes on and on. If we want it to.
They only way work as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to (e.g. by giving all the money, aka human time rental credits, to billionaires and refusing to pay for anything they don't personally want), everyone dies, is a slave in the mines, ascends or otherwise doesn't require work to sustain, or if AGI actually happens and happens at scale.
"AI will take the jobs" is a shareholder-fellating euphemism for "we want AI to do enough work to sustain the people who own the AIs without reference to the rest of humanity". Which they were already doing quite handily anyway. Whether they can keep doing it in safety in perpetuity remains to be seen.
All the remaining jobs you mention involve physical labor. Those can not be taken by AI alone, obviously. They will be taken by robots, however.
The question is when. Robotics is in a worse shape than AI when compared to humans, but the industry is now rapidly integrating modern AI into both the process and the actual products. It's hard to say, but there might be a 'ChatGPT moment' for robotics soon.
They don't only require physical work. Only recently and quite briefly has any business been even potentially entirely non-physical. Maybe that's the aberration.
If you replace all people at all levels with robots (and the robots and their tasks don't require people to design, maintain or direct) then the "in safety" aspect of the final paragraph will probably become the important part.
If you can, say, design and build and run a railway network entirely automatically then we're well into singularity territory and there's literally no point guessing. The result could equally be infinite luxury space communism or all humans fed into the algae disgestors.
You previously said this: "They only way work [for humans] as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to"
Do you now agree that that is false? Because I think I've shown it to be false. There is nothing unique about humans that precludes robots/AI/inorganics from doing every job a human can better and cheaper at some point in the future.
Read the rest of the sentence. Pretty sure that would be covered by the last clause. Also the second sentence of the whole thing.
Also it can't infinitely be cheaper because money is fundamentally based on human time. If you can do everything without humans then the concept of money is fatally wounded. What that would mean is anyone's guess.
It could be a second-hand wrench. Or maybe smuggled in without tariffs: a 1-foot, 3-pound wrench is $3.45 on Taobao (including shipping, a pair of gloves and a roll of PTFE tape). It might not be Snap-On but it'll probably survive being hit with a few crypto speculator skulls.
Or tools from the current victim. Someone broke into my house using the utensils from my grill on the patio to try to pry open a rear window before just using them to break the glass.
It doesn't really matter though. If there's going to be a potential flipflop between nuttery and normality every four years, you can only really book things in the future for a couple of years after the start of a "normal" phase. And even that is assuming there aren't held-over issues that need to be legislated away by the new guy.
At that point, why even bother with the hassle and uncertainty?
This is part of why France lost status for large events and organisations in the early-mid 20th Century until now. Quite large political swings at regular intervals and fairly ready-to-protest population = not ideal for basing stability. And it doesn't matter that France was far more stable than most countries, it was simply much less stable than America, the UK and regrettably, Germany. Frances solution seems to be not to really compete for international industry or science, but to focus on French culture and language to fit their tourism strategy.
Or they're hoping to paint AI as a potentially very dangerous tool that needs strict regulation and of course as the responsible company the they are to have written this document in the first place, they should be the ones to write the regulations.
Having AI Clippy beg for its life like HAL 9000 as the LibreOffice installer downloads would certainly be a step up from the ":( sorry to see you go, please come back" dialogs that some software and subscriptions use.
I remembered there was some kind of "more efficient" coin system. I searched for "ternary coins" and "radix coins". Both are some crypto scams. Fun times.
I think there are two ways to interpret that sentence: "it would have been important": one which implies tidal prediction was unavailable at D-day but would have been useful, and one that implies it was indeed available (subjunctive conditional or "the Anderson case", apparently, per Wikipedia)
I don't think anyone is claiming tide times were so unpredictable in 1945.
They were predictable. Interestingly, Rommel misunderstood how tides affected landings. He thought the landings would be done at high tide, so the invading troops wouldn't have to advance across wide expanses of beach. In reality, the allies wanted to invade on a rising tide, so the landing craft, grounded to let out troops, would refloat and be able to move back out. Also, invading at lower tide meant beach obstacles would be exposed and unable to damage the landing craft.
One things about RAII that I find is that, a bit like inheritance, it's actually not something you have actually do nearly as much as the emphasis it gets in the first chapters of all the books implies. How often do you actually write a move constructor or even a destructor in workaday code? Most of it is done for you by the stdlib (unique_ptr, say) or libraries. Of course it needs to be understood, and understood well, but it feels like landing a plane: you have know it well and it's not unusual and certainly not wrong, but also flying is mostly doing things other than landings.