Claims do not support themselves. The claim is unsupported by evidence and thus the burden of proof is on them or you to produce that evidence.
As the author and implementer of the algorithm allegedly prepared, ran, and analyzed benchmarks they obviously, by far, have the easiest time producing the evidence for their claim. Your argument that the poster needs to go read, implement, integrate, and benchmark the algorithm to to generate evidence to counter the absence of evidence for the claim is ridiculous. It would be as easy as 1-2-3 for the author to present their evidence to meet their burden of proof, yet you are demanding a extraordinary level of effort by the poster to present evidence against when they do not even have the burden of proof.
This is further ridiculous because the author or you would merely need to support the positive claim, where as you are demanding the poster demonstrate the negative, and all this before there is any evidence.
You should really stop with the unnecessarily combative tone when your entire model of argumentation is completely backwards in every respect.
Writers make conscious trade offs between time, cost, feasibility. Are writers language engineers? Literally everybody makes trade offs, that is not a distinguishing aspect.
I am confused how you got to “make the minimal thing that ticks of [sic] all of the must requirements”. I said engineering was about objective guarantees. Requirements are a derivative and means of that.
Making things better, more efficient, cheaper, etc. is not at odds with that. If you guarantee that level of performance and achieve it, then you have produced a acceptable instance meeting your guarantees. If you fail to meet your guarantees, then you have something unacceptable.
Despite the tolerances of a rocket-quality screw being far better than a car-quality screw being far better than a toy-quality screw, a car-quality screw does not get a pass in rockets because it is “better” than a toy-quality screw. It needs to meet the guarantees.
When you would rather have nothing over something that pretends to meet its guarantees, then you are probably in the vicinity of engineering.
To add on, engineering is about objective guarantees to meet objective responsibility.
This bridge is rated for 10 tons. This chemical process produces 1 mg 99% purity crystals. This biological process produces 90% pure insulin. This circuit handles 1 kA.
Engineering is not about better or worse it is about acceptable or unacceptable.
This naturally results in a desire for requirements so you can meet your guarantees. Specifications so you know what guarantees you need or what you are provided and how those map back to the real responsibility. Standards so you can consistently solve common problems.
Why do we judge an organization by their leader and head executive who has complete control over direction and operations? Who individually has a controlling interest which can and has been used to elect himself the leader? Who regularly, openly, and publicly talks about how he needs to have control over the operation of the organization to be willing to run it?
You would be hard pressed to find a person who is more responsible or more representative of their organization than that.
Desalination, turning unlimited sea water into fresh water which is one of the most expensive sources of fresh water, is ~0.50 $/m^3. They can literally manufacture the water they use with zero impact on the water table for ~20 million dollars.
Capability passing and dependency injection are just convoluted ways to describe passing parameters instead of using globals.
Capability passing is just extending that to the level of imports. Your files do not import the global I/O library and then use io.print(). They are passed a I/O library as the parameter {io} which defines a print() function and then call io.print().
No tzdata. When a time becomes the past you canonicalize it to the UTC, or better yet TAI, second it occurred at. As in, this occurred N cesium atom vibrations after the zero timestamp.
That is permanently fixed and can be losslessly and perfectly converted to the corresponding date in the past if you care about what local time was at that instant at some location.
Obviously. The cubicle was invented as a more humane and private alternative to the standard open plan office of the 1960s, let alone hotdesking which is somehow even more of a fungible human cog than the open plan office.
> One can make the argument that the requirements is a much smaller surface to verify than that of the entire program.
This argument is unfortunately empirically false for any program of any meaningful complexity (>1000 lines, probably even as low as >100 lines ignoring well-defined algorithms and data structures) using current formal methods.
Complete formal specifications are usually multiple times larger than the corresponding source code and encode esoteric propertys necessary for the proof, but which are largely even more impenetrable than a undocumented codebase.
So, it is both harder to figure out if you encoded the desired requirements and it is more complex. Your only advantage is confidence that what you wrote down is proven.
Not at all. WASM is a repudiation of the thesis, not a confirmation.
The thesis is that javascript-compatible source will be the substrate of the future. A javascript engine, though one highly optimized to efficiently interpret a compatible subset, is a potential universal platform of the future despite generic javascript being a terrible substrate.
WASM fundamentally rejects this by creating a new javascript-incompatible substrate that is actually designed to be a low level target. Claiming WASM is confirmation of the thesis makes as much sense as claiming that a future where everybody has a Rust interpreter in the browser is confirmation of the thesis.
If you are arguing that, then you are just arguing that web browsers will run code in some form in some language as they already do. As the video is clearly discussing a “surprising” possible future, it makes little sense for it to be consistent with literally business as usual and literally every possible future.
Huh? It is a argument against government backdoor access to messages.
The government demonstrated that they are unqualified to keep data securely under their control. As such, any argument that a backdoor only allows the duly elected government access is empirically false. Any such backdoor empirically allows nefarious criminals access to your messages whereas the absence of a backdoor keeps your messages safely between you and the other party.
So, your options are:
1. Encryption with no backdoors so all messages are safe.
2. Criminals can freely read your messages so the government can more easily investigate potential criminals.
Nope. Those accusations were proven false and the people who made them have lost all their credibility. It was just a smear campaign by Tesla promoters so effective that here you are parroting it against reality to protect a trillion dollar company that actively lies and promotes illegal and dangerous behavior. They really outdid themselves with that smear campaign.
If you disagree, I presented the criteria for evidence needed to support your case. Remember, no shaky cam.
Ah yes, consistently, correctly, and truthfully highlighting serious safety defects and unacceptable design oversights for years in the products of a trillion dollar company with a rabid fanbase well known for running smear campaigns is "not interested in pedestrian safety".
I imagine everybody relishes the opportunity to get smeared by entirely false accusations by Tesla promoters with a conflict of interest. You can tell the Tesla promoters running the smear campaigns are worth listening to because their smears keep getting disproved by video evidence.
Please point at any clearly visible video evidence that their whistleblowing is inaccurate. No "shaky cam" "Bigfoot" evidence where you point at something blurry and falsify a claim to fit your desired narrative.
Your job would have been a lot easier if any of those Tesla Promoters accepted the Dawn Project's offer to attempt the tests themselves with their own Tesla's and their own cameras giving them the perfect platform to debunk the Dawn Project's claims. Weird how they all chickened out on that slam dunk.
It most likely does not recognize the sign. Last I saw, after years of furious development they were still unable to recognize standard "Do Not Enter", "Road Closed", and "One Way" signs in the US. Here is a video [1] from a week ago where it fails to recognize a clearly visible "Do Not Enter" sign with "One Way" road indications.
Really, your first instinct is: "The journalists are engaging in a baseless smear campaign."
The video evidence clearly demonstrates it engaging in a clearly signed illegal maneuver that it should never have even begun. Furthermore, your mischaracterization of the video is significant. The car straightens out having crossed the pedestrian walkway clearly indicated on the dash screen. The dash screen clearly indicates the vehicle intending to continue to travel on the bike-only road.
In addition, this is Tesla's own official curated video [1]. Tesla is the one who decided that failure to obey clearly indicated signs and engaging in a illegal maneuver is the best representation of their product they could muster.
No, as can be clearly seen from the video, it is doing a right turn onto a road where the only lane is a full-size lane with a sign indicating that cars are not allowed to use that road in that direction.
Okay, so in 14 years they replace all cell phone service in the US achieving 6% of the revenue goal. Just have to find another 15 “all cell phone service in US” and do it all in 14 years and we are golden.
Just add a whole Apple worth of revenue yearly and they can just barely make it.
Ah yes, the horrible anti-feature of IP fragmentation strikes again.
Pair it with the anti-solution of dropping large packets instead of truncating them and we get our perfect storm of bad design that is MTU incompatibility and modern MTU discovery.
Of course they do. Have you literally never run into a problem that the average developer can not solve, but a expert can solve? That is infinity times more productive.
Even assuming that maybe the average developer could come to learn how to solve the problem you can easily see the gap between taking months to learn how to solve a problem versus already knowing how to solve it on short notice being over 10x.
Large productivity differences are mostly a function of differences in capability than differences of speed in solving rote problems easily within their capabilitys.
As the author and implementer of the algorithm allegedly prepared, ran, and analyzed benchmarks they obviously, by far, have the easiest time producing the evidence for their claim. Your argument that the poster needs to go read, implement, integrate, and benchmark the algorithm to to generate evidence to counter the absence of evidence for the claim is ridiculous. It would be as easy as 1-2-3 for the author to present their evidence to meet their burden of proof, yet you are demanding a extraordinary level of effort by the poster to present evidence against when they do not even have the burden of proof.
This is further ridiculous because the author or you would merely need to support the positive claim, where as you are demanding the poster demonstrate the negative, and all this before there is any evidence.
You should really stop with the unnecessarily combative tone when your entire model of argumentation is completely backwards in every respect.