Readit News“The Gods confound the man who first found out How to distinguish the hours---confound him, too Who in this place set up a sundial To cut and hack my days so wretchedly Into small pieces ! . . . I can't (even sit down to eat) unless the sun gives leave. The town's so full of these confounded dials . . .” ― Plautus
Platus lived 254 – 184 BC. Sundials are from 1500BC. While it's a great quote, it certainly wasn't a new invention when he wrote it.
1) For pedagogical or explanatory purposes. For example, if I were to write:
> ∀x∈R,x^2≥0
I've used 10 characters to say
> For every real number x, it's square is greater than or equal to zero
For a mathematician, the first is sufficient. For someone learning, the second might be better (and perhaps as expansion of 'real number' or that 'square' is 'multiplying it by itself').
2) To make sure everything is stated and explicit. "He finally did x" implies that something has been anticipated/worked on for awhile, but "after a period of anticipation he did x" makes it more clear. This also raises the question of who was anticipating, which could be made explicit too.
As someone who spends a lot of time converting specifications to code (and explaining technical problems to non-technical people), unstated assumptions are very prevalent. And then sometimes people have different conceptions of the unstated assumption (i.e. some people might think that nobody was anticipating, it just took longer than you'd expect otherwise).
So longer text might seem like a simple expansion, but then it ends up adding detail.
I definitely agree with the authors point, I just want to argue that having a text-expander tool isn't quite as useless as 'generate garbage for me'.
Both aren't perfect languages, and both are far from "the best" but it is maddening that Python get often picked as a darling when its implementation, ecosystem and tooling are fundamentally at odds with correctness and productivity.
What do you mean by this? I can think of signs of a pantheon in general but not particularly in the creation myths.
a) AI is a bubble
b) It's about to burst
This is based on a study that "just 5pc of integrated AI pilots are extracting millions in value, while the vast majority remain stuck with no measurable P&L [profit and loss] impact".
I think the conclusions (while possibly true) are not supported here. By comparison, in the stock market in general, just a handful of stocks provide most of the returns over the past few decades. This does not mean the stock market is a bubble or about to burst.