I am biased but I think if they really believed what they were saying, they would be a lot more humble about it.
I suspect what happened is the classic problem: you were sincere, then someone showed you a pile of money bigger than you could possibly imagine and you started to make excuses - Anthropic has a lot of EA people, so the excuse "Imagine how many lives you could save with this much money"[0] is very tempting, especially if all you have to do is diverge slightly from your plan.
[0]: the excuse is even true! You can get a lot of malaria nets/vaccines for 1 million.
Go does not give you control. Much of the speed comes from choosing the right algorithms - including memory management. In Go you have GC, you don't have that in Zig.
Linked lists are a lot less slow if you use Arena allocation around your hotspots and make sure to allocate space for as many as you thing you need, since they will be carved out of a contigious block of memory and will stay in CPU cache.
Golang also requires you to write more code, as it lags Zigs try operator.
That is interesting. And it's an AI critique I haven't heard before.
Would you consider it possible that the way non-intentionally placed items break the game immersion for you is because they appear in such a way that you think you can interact with them in a certain way, but you can't?
Like if there's an extra door in the house you're trying to get into, but that door doesn't really open, then in your mind that breaks the integrity of the game's systems. If so, I think the LLM response is that there are no more doors that don't open and that the world can be generated as needed.
No computer can handle the complexity of even a small town. But it would be possible, at least in the future, to generate the part of the world you interact with, which would heighten the emersion.
I believe the world would be better of without alcohol for consumption, yes.
The only real benefits are not being the one outside the group, and the downsides include liver damage, social damage, massively higher risk for falling, drunk driving,...
More to the point, alcohol would never be permitted if it was invented today. Marijuana might.
Its meaningless to decriminalize using it, since it does not give big benefit of replacing narco terrorists producers with pure, controlled stuff from legal pharma companies.
The world is obviously better of without drugs, but given that is not going to happen, the question to decide is: is the world better of with drugs from legal pharmacutical companies, or (somewhat) restricted access to drugs through an illegal system?
Decrimininalizing drug use is the worst of both worlds: you get more drug access, but it still happens through the illegal system and benefits narco terrorists.
If you don't want to put drug users in jail (you cannot reasonably fine homeless people), you can offer drug courts and diversionary programs.
You need the federal government to do what it did with Marijuana (which is still federally illegal), to be able to try the other choice.
It certainly involved a lot of skill and expense, but how many more lives could be saved if the same money had been spent on improved traffic safety or NHS in general?
I have done as OP suggested and the main benefit is that I can move my email elsewhere.
For now my email is with Apple, since they offers email hosting as part of the icloud+ (or whatever its called). If they decide to die/enshittify, then I can move to another host without having to change any contacts.
One the other hand, since I did use my bare gmail for some years, I am still stuck with it, in case I have some service that depends on it.
That's certainly an interesting idea - mostly everybody should know someone who has a gmail account, so if you get a couple invites a month, that should be plenty and the setup would
Well I was about to say destroy scammers, but I just realized that they would send out spam to places where you could gamble your invites for Real Cash(TM) or just straight up buy them.
This would lower the creation of accounts, but then they would be rarer and worth more to spammers, since a spamming gmail would be rare.
And we would hear sob stories of people getting their accounts closed for inviting spammers.
I am not sure the backslash would be big if Gmail said that a year from now you would have to pay $9.99 per month to use your Gmail ($12.99 ad-free). I mean people would complain, but would that actually give a backslash? Especially if they made it easy for people to move their account elsewhere? People are used to paying a lot more for things outside of tech.
I suspect what is really holding them back is the loss of data, and the loss of the assumption that ~everyone has a Google account that they are logged into, which means they can be traced around the web. Google also benefits from this, since its anti-bot tool will be more accurate and less fustrating to users.
I suspect what happened is the classic problem: you were sincere, then someone showed you a pile of money bigger than you could possibly imagine and you started to make excuses - Anthropic has a lot of EA people, so the excuse "Imagine how many lives you could save with this much money"[0] is very tempting, especially if all you have to do is diverge slightly from your plan.
[0]: the excuse is even true! You can get a lot of malaria nets/vaccines for 1 million.