Readit NewsI don't think they had much control over when Francis died.
You could probably be clever and come up with a more complicated discount scheme that's not so easy for Honey to take advantage of, but that adds complexity for users as well.
TL;DW the determinant represents how much you scale the area/volume/hypervolume (depending on dimension) of a shape by applying a matrix transformation to each point.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNk_zzaMoSs&list=PLZHQObOWTQ...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip3X9LOh2dk&list=PLZHQObOWTQ...
What you are essentially saying is that pi = 3.14....pi...........
If that was the case, wouldn't it mean that the digits of pi are not countably infinite but instead is a continuum. So you wouldn't be able to put the digits of pi in one to one correspondence with natural numbers. But obviously we can so shouldn't our default be to assume our premise was wrong?
> It is a completely irrational concept, thinking rationally.
It is definitely interesting to think about.
(setq km (* m 1000.0))
(setq cm (* m 0.01))
(setq foot (* 0.3048 m))
(setq ft (* 0.3048 m))
(setq mile (* 5280 foot))This is more of a transpiler, than an actual compiler.
Am I missing something?
Nowadays, people generally understand a compiler to be a program that reads, parses, and translates programs from one language to another. The fundamental structure of a machine code compiler and a WebAssembly compiler is virtually identical -- would this project somehow be more of a "real" compiler if instead of generating text it generated binary that encoded the exact same information? Would it become a "real" compiler if someone built a machine that runs on WebAssembly instead of running it virtually?
The popular opinion is that splitting hairs about this is useless, and the definition of a compiler has thus relaxed to include "transpilers" as well as machine code targeting compilers (at least in my dev circles).
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/ab10a90523e06df54bbb8a...
Firstly, the author doesn't even define the term AI. Do they just mean generative AI (likely), or all machine learning? Secondly, you can pick any of those and they would only be true of particular implementations of generative AI, or machine learning, it's not true of technology as a whole.
For instance, small edge models don't use a lot of energy. Models that are not trained on racist material won't be racist. Models not trained to give advice on suicide, or trained NOT to do such things, won't do it.
Do I even need to address the claim that it's at it's core rooted in "fascist" ideology? So all the people creating AI to help cure diseases, enable technologies assistive technologies for people with impairments, and other positive tasks, all these desires are fascist? It's ridiculous.
AI is a technology that can be used positively or negatively. To be sure many of the generative AI systems today do have issues associated with them, but the authors position of extending these issues to the entirety of the AI and AI practitioners, it's immoral and shitty.
I also don't care what the author has to say after the intro.
I too can hypothetically conceive of generative AI that isn't harmful and wasteful and dangerous, but that's not what we have. It's disingenuous to dismiss his opinion because the technology that you imagine is so wonderful.