It's lost 80% of it's value in 2 years, which usually isn't great. The most charitable view of X/Twitter is that it's now a propaganda platform that Musk doesn't mind taking a loss on in order to enact political change.
Other countries have higher minimum wage but more "third spaces", so I don't think this argument holds water. Also if the minimum wage increases, that puts pressure to increase all other wages.
The connection between wages and the number of third spaces is a little dubious. But, the complaint about whinging is valid - "Why can't a commercial organization create a third space for me, according to how I'd like it to be, or evn how it used to be" is the whinge I hear. Third places exist, but if it's not your favorite Starbucks, well, just move on.
Why bother keeping minor commits in feature branches? They just clutter the main branch without adding any useful information that a future maintainer could use.
because squashing multiple changes into one change for the sake of decluttering is irreversible and also unnecessary, since whomever wants to view the log in such a squashed manner can do so with a flag
If the minor commits are related to the feature branch, by all means squash it into the feature commits if you feel that makes your feature branch easier to review.
However,should you, while developing your feature, find some minor thing that needs improving (e.g. adding comments, spelling fixes or tests to some existing API you encountered while developing your feature), it can be better to keep it separate, so there's fewer red herring in both the history and the review.
I've been experimenting with this recently. You've got to be explicit about how you want ChatGPT to behave, particularly how it handles failure. For example:
"Let's roleplay. You are a DM. I am a player. When there is a difficult action, roll a D20. I succeed if my roll is above 10, I fail otherwise. Failure should always move the story along, and introduce a complication. Write like a professional author. My character will be Alice McRogue, and the scene will be Alice trying break into a merchant's home. As a DM, you decide what happens in the world, but I have control over Alice. You will ask me what Alice does when necessary."
Regular expressions can be written verbosely and with comments; you don't need to write them like line noise, any more than you need to do so with normal code. Regular expressions also have the significant advantages of being both pure and guaranteed to terminate. There's even libraries (like re2) that guarantee termination in linear time.
It's insane to write code to text search when a regular expression could be reasonably used instead. This article is objectively bad advice and should not be followed.
> Self-driving cars, if even attainable (which is questionable), don't solve any real problems besides bolstering the want for cars and thus more roads and highways, which are primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
It may be the opposite, as driverless cars can potentially be utilized more efficiently. If I drive to a destination, my car will sit in a parking space doing nothing and wasting space. A driverless car could drop me off, then drive away to taxi other people around. There's much less need for parking lots, freeing up valuable urban land.
It may reduce car ownership overall. I have a car because it's more convenient than public transport, and far cheaper than a taxi. If I could have a self-driving car at my door in, say, 15 minutes, and it was competitively priced, then I probably wouldn't bother owning a car. Another advantage would be that if I needed more seats, or more space, I could order a vehicle to my specifications.
It may increase utilization of roads, as self-driving cars that can communicate with each other can make more efficient use of them. Less need for stopping distances if all cars can brake simultaneously, and being able to slow down in advance reduces the impact of traffic jams.
I would argue that all of that is somewhat wishful thinking. I highly doubt it comes to be. And even if it would, it would still be less efficient than public transportation systems (possibly operated partially privately).
It's certainly the case that societal changes are hard to predict. It might be the case that self-driving vehicles will encourage longer drives, for example.
That said, I think my own personal carbon footprint would likely fall, because most of the time I could use a much smaller vehicle. Unless I doubled the amount of time I spent on the road, I'd probably use less energy overall, as I could use a 2 seater car with half the mass.
Public transport is, of course, much more efficient; but it's also much less convenient, and at least in my country, more expensive. It costs less to run my car for a year than it would be to pay the equivalent bus fare for a year. If buses were self-driving, maybe the opposite would be true.
> Ever consider if the effective duty cycle of your car is increased the vehicle wears out quicker?
Sure, but by how much? What's the average extra overhead per person? By that I mean, what's the average distance that a taxi would need to drive between dropping one person off, and picking the next person up.
The more taxis there are, the lower the overhead, as the more likely it is a taxi will happen be nearby to someone who wants one. We're used to taxis being rare, especially outside of major cities, but if taxis were common, the overhead might be very low.
I can look outside right now, and see maybe 20 vehicles parked within 50m of my home. If that were 5 self-driving taxis instead, that would be easily be enough capacity for my immediate neighborhood, at least most of the time.
So you could likely reduce the amount of cars locally by a factor of 4 or 5, and I'd still have a vehicle less than a minute away at most locations. Yes, if you had a 5th of the cars they'd have to do 5 times the work; but likely not much more than that. In other words, the maintenance cost wouldn't significantly worsen, and may even improve; cars aren't immune to entropy while stationary.
The other advantage of having self-driving taxis is that you can more easily specialize. I have a pretty typical 5 seater car because I sometimes need that space. But most of the time, I could make do with a 2 seater with half the mass. My choice of car is determined by the edge cases, but my choice of taxi would be determined by what I needed at the time.
Overhead is the wrong metric. Depreciation over fixed costs, marginal variable cost (e.g. fuel, oil, etc), and opportunity cost are what you want to look at. If you use a car more it wears out faster and needs to be replaced sooner. It needs more fuel and more frequent preventative maintenance.
If the average trip is short the rob taxi does more trips and the effect is the same.
Who cleans up the car when a drunk stranger pukes in it while you are sleeping?
> Overhead is the wrong metric. Depreciation over fixed costs, marginal variable cost (e.g. fuel, oil, etc), and opportunity cost are what you want to look at. If you use a car more it wears out faster and needs to be replaced sooner. It needs more fuel and more frequent preventative maintenance.
Sure, but you also need less cars, and the cars can be more specialized (i.e., smaller on average). Two 1500kg cars travelling 10km each, might be replaced by one 750kg robotaxi travelling 20km. Overall a significant reduction in fuel for the same two journeys.
And then there's the question of whether it's cheaper to have one car traveling 100,000km over 5 years, or two cars travelling 50,000km over 5 years. My guess is that fewer cars travelling further would be less expensive in most cases.
> Who cleans up the car when a drunk stranger pukes in it while you are sleeping?
>
> Who fuels it or charges it?
You'd hire someone to do it? The same way it works with rental cars or taxis today. That's part of the overhead I mean: is it more efficient for companies to maintain a specialized fleet of robotaxis, or for individuals to maintain a far larger fleet of generalized vehicles?
Dependency injection frameworks don't have to be "massive kitchen-sink things". They can be minimal and predictable. Ideally, they should just be a more declarative way of defining function dependencies and execution order.
"When you get attacked in the forest by a guy in a clown costume with an axe you don't need to add that as a training input first before you make a run for it."
Sure, because it's already a training input. We'd run because we recognize the axe, the signs of aggression, the horror movie trope of an evil clown, and so forth. We have to teach "stranger danger" to children.
"There's no agency, liveliness, autonomy or learning in a dynamic real-time way to any of the systems we have, they're for the most part just static, 'flat', machines."
Well, that's at least in part because we design them that way. It's more convenient to separate out the "learning" and "doing" parts so we have control over how the network is trained.
not in any meaningful sense, no. I can tell you, "if something's fishy about the situation, just leave". You can do this not because of some particular training inputs or examples I give you, but because you have common sense and a sort of personality and intuition for how to behave in the absence of data. If you told that sentence to a state of the art ML model you'd probably get "what fish?" as an answer.
>Well, that's at least in part because we design them that way
It's mostly because we have no idea how to design them anyway else. I think if anyone knew how to build complex agents with rich internal states that have the intent and communication abilities of humans we'd do that. It's not even really conceivable right now how you could have an ML type system that also can just directly adopt high level concepts dynamically just by communicating them.
> not in any meaningful sense, no. I can tell you, "if something's fishy about the situation, just leave"
"Fishy" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. How much training went into refining an instinct for what's "fishy"? Do you not agree that everyone has a different view on what's fishy?
> I think if anyone knew how to build complex agents with rich internal states that have the intent and communication abilities of humans we'd do that.
I'm not so sure. There doesn't seem to be much commercial value in having an agent with intent and its own goals, and most AI advancements are for commercial entities these days.
"I can tell you, "if something's fishy about the situation, just leave". You can do this not because of some particular training inputs or examples I give you, but because you have common sense and a sort of personality and intuition for how to behave in the absence of data."
Only if I had a baseline to compare the situation to. If you took out all familiar elements, I'd have no way of telling whether a situation was normal or suspicious. My understanding of the word "fishy" is born from 300 thousand hours of training data.
"It's mostly because we have no idea how to design them anyway else. I think if anyone knew how to build complex agents with rich internal states that have the intent and communication abilities of humans we'd do that."
That's a different question. We can build machines that learn autonomously; they just don't have the capability of biological minds.
