After a lackluster year the market did NOT like this move at all.

Claude argued with me about the quadratic equation the other day. It vehemently felt a -c was required whereas a c was the correct answer. I pointed this out showing step by step and it finally agreed. I tried Grok to see if it could get it right. Nope, the exact same response as Claude, but Grok never backed down; even after the step by step explanation of the maths.

You're missing the point, they're giving an example of an entire workload that fits into your technique's worst-case overhead. It's could be the right trade-off and rarely be hit, but that worst-case does sound bad.

So I live in the EU where such supplements are supposedly safe. Article said that supplements that mix pepper and turmeric are dangerous. And the dose that was dangerous to the woman was 2000mg.

I looked on my table toward the bottle of turmeric my parents gifted me recently, saying they heard it was good and bought on a famous "health" store.

Bottle is: turmeric + pepper "designed for max absorption" and dose is 10000mg.

Guess "fake it till you make it" doesn't scale well.

At this point it feels like there is nothing stopping Python's performance from approaching that of Julia over the next decade.

Doesn’t your behavior prove the point of showing No AI ?

He was always clear on his expectations. He wants to make a machine he can take on a world tour. That's his stated goal.

The consequence of that is that it has to be reliable enough to play through a full concert without maintenance or breakdown, and it has to be robust enough that it can be transported from place to place. These are his hard requirements.

Then there are some less well defined requirements. Which is that the machine has to play nice music and has to be a marble machine as Martin understands it.

This last is the real constraint. Otherwise he could just buy a midi keyboard which would fulfil all the requirements about reliability, robustness and quality of music, but would fail the spirit of the endeavour.

> a2, c = a2+c, c+2 > is faster than > a2 += c > c += 2 > My guess is that in the first case the two evaluations and assignments can happen in parallel, and so may happen on different cores

Not sure I follow, isn't Python single threaded by default? Changes to GIL is coming but does it change how the interpreter uses CPU?