Readit NewsCan someone elaborate on why laser energy break even was even a big deal? Why does that matter? Doesn't only total net energy matter?
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be doing tickets that have been assigned to them or whatever, but I am saying that if people took 30 minutes to step back and look at the big picture objectives more often - or if their managers spent more time clearly communicating such things - they'd stop wasting a lot of time on things that seem important in the very myopic context of the task they just completed.
It seems to kind of skip over what they mean by "too busy". Are they arguing that being too occupied to focus on another equally important task is a personal problem (which is obviously a ridiculous idea), or are they talking about people who just don't want to do something and thus pass it off as being too busy? Or is it about someone who's occupied with a task they think is more important?
Plus, all the buzzwords at the start made me think I was about to be sold a scammy self improvement course by a crypto-influencer.
How do you deal with chores?
It's stupid, but it works. At least for me. I think it comes down to 2 different types of positive reinforcement:
1. It feels good to mark a task done. 2. It feels good to look at a list of all of the things I did that day, even if they were the size of taking out the trash.
Your comment seems like a prime case of perfect being the enemy of good.
Those tests should be as small as possible to verify that everything is still wired together correctly.
Everything else should be either unit tests or narrow integration tests between a small handful of components. And as you said, they should live in the repository of the software they test.
It's actually a bit of a problem now that the power plants are starting to shut down.
By "sane" I specifically mean "acknowledges the shortcomings of the current system, at the same time as we acknowledge our dependence on foreign labor"
I'm on mobile or I'd track down more links, but it was pretty easy for me to find several articles about how this is bad science reporting.
all i know about these LLMs is that even if they understand language or can create it, they know nothing of the subjects they speak of.
copilot told me to cast an int to str to get rid of an error.
thanks copilot, it was on kernel code.
glad i didnt do it :/. just closed browser and opened man pages. i get nowhere with these things. it feels u need to understand so much its likely less typing to write the code. code is concise and clear after all, mostly unambiguous. language on the other hand...
i do like it as a bit of a glorified google, but looking at what code it outputs my confidence it its findings lessens every prompt
As a recent example of this, I was recently curious about how the heart gets the oxygen depleted blood back to the heart. Pumping blood out made sense to me, but the return path was less obvious.
So I asked chatgpt whether the heart sucks in the blood from veins.
It told me that the heart does not suck in the blood, it creates a negative pressure zone that causes the blood to flow into it ... :facepalm:
Sure, my language was non-technical/imprecise, but I bet if I asked a cardiologist about this they would have said something like "That's not the language I would have used, but basically."
I don't know why, but lately I've been getting a lot of cases where these models contradicts themself even within the same response. I'm working out a lot (debating a triathlon) and it told me to swim and do upper body weight lifting on the same day to "avoid working out the same muscle group in the same day". Similarly it told me to run and do leg workouts on the same day.
> i do like it as a bit of a glorified google, but looking at what code it outputs my confidence it its findings lessens every prompt
I'm having the exact same reaction. I'm finding they are still more useful than google, even with an error rate close to 70%, but I am quickly learning that you can't trust anything they output and should double check everything.