Readit NewsIt really seems to be art specifically which people are often keen to describe as worthless, not any particular category of good that artwork might fall into.
I say this not because I think it's an especially noteworthy or important objection, but to echo GP's point, that it's very hard to find AI that suits everyone, and it's not just a matter of difficulty.
I think the idea that companies go under because they aren't ambitious enough says more about modern attitudes towards growth than it does about the reality of business.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
> [Hunger] stones were embedded into a river during droughts to mark the water level as a warning to future generations that they will have to endure famine-related hardships if the water sinks to this level again.
> The problem becomes a little trickier in constructions with did. The form considered correct following did, at least in American English, is use to. Just as we say "Did he want to?" instead of "Did he wanted to?," so we say "Did he use to?" instead of "Did he used to?" Here again, only in writing does the difference become an issue.
> While in American English "did used to" is considered an error...
Personally, didn't used to looks jarring, but it made me open the article so…
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-it-used-to-...
---
That's the opposite of what your source says:
> In writing, however, use to in place of used to is an error.
Used to X was the standard past tense of to use in the sense of being in the habit of:
I used to fish: I was previously in the habit of fishing, correct both in the past and today.
I use to fish: I am presently in the habit of fishing, correct in the past but no longer understood today.
The second, however, is according to MW occasionally misused to mean "I was previously in the habit of fishing".
I.e. somehow walking 100 steps suddenly produces 0 CO2. Which is completely not true, at least in this case the person would be breathing, let alone spending calories walking up the stairs.
It takes an average of 0.10kcal to walk up/down a step, averaged.[1]
2.2kg of CO2 are emitted per 2000kcal of consumption (I just averaged table 3 for want of a better idea)[2]
37 steps in a staircase (TFA, 46 total - 9 flat)
3.7kcal burned, 3.7kcal * 1.1g/kcal ~= 4g CO2 per person per trip
Obviously very rough, but unless I've made an order-of-magnitude error it's in the same ballpark.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9309638/
[2] https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937...
I wonder if Python and JavaScript will get you that far 50 years from now?
JavaScript is 26 years old, Python is 31. They both continue to grow in importance year-on-year, JavaScript because there is nothing on the horizon which will plausibly replace it, and Python because a large number of industries and programmers genuinely love it.
I think there's a nontrivial chance they'll both still be languages of primary importance in 50 years, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that they'll at least remain as relics yet needing support the way Fortran and COBOL exist today.