LLM are string happy instead of using ADT with ocaml.
That was my main pain point with it. Otherwise fairly happy, I would feel C#/.net core would be the best overall in term of language/platform.
The top comment here is someone lamenting how depressing it is that supposedly a single person owns the night sky, and others are asking if we will be the last generation to see the night sky.
The power balance is tilted heavily towards employers though, no? If I quit you still have things like income and health care. If you fire me, not so much.
What progress are you referring to? The shiny blinky things that scroll across our screens while the poor stay poor, war rages everywhere and the internet is overwhelmed with fake AI generated content.
The more I look back into history, the more I realise that besides the sparkling blinky-blinky gadgets, we have made no progress at all - on a species level. We’re still living in caves, we’re still believe in God myths that make no sense and let ourselves be blindly led by folks who claim legitimacy because they won voter approval based on the lies they told.
No, for me progress is a fiction invented in hollywood or silicon valley. Real progress would be understanding our place in the universe, understanding that we are one of many species with which we share this planet, that we don’t have the right to strip clear the planet for our sole benefit. And that shiny bits of metal or bits of paper with numbers and faces on them aren’t important and most certainly won’t help us achieve true progress.
> how do we know the Spanish was translated perfectly, without a massive detail review
You can't. I think that's a large part of why LLMs have caught on much better with programmers: they have ways of making the computer check its own work.
Checking a document is still a laborious manual task. And completely unfulfilling.
Life is better for the poorest in society than it's ever been, thanks in large part to the nonstop proliferation and cheapening of technology in the past 200 years, esp. the past 100. I can't for the life of me understand why you people are so focused on trying to drag down the top when you could be focused on further bringing up the bottom. It's just such a miserable negative perspective on life, like crabs in a bucket.
Well, it has proven itself to be a very useful military asset in Ukraine.
The rural & underdeveloped area and the niche applications (ex: ships and planes) will bring-in some cash.
And in addition, the US Army will pretty much guaranty it to be in the green: it wants this capability plus some control over it.
If it was civilian only, I doubt the economics would make much sense, specially given the amount and short lifespan of the satellites combined with the overall shrinking market (rural flight to cities + fiber deployment).
You still need a powerline to your house, sewer and water.
There are plenty of fibers and dark fibers on power pools.
Starlink doesn't 'just' pollute the night sky for EVERY SINGLE HUMAN (8 Billion people) it can also poisen our atmosphere when they re-enter and burn up.
To be fair if you are an English speaker and move to medium/lower CoL central/eastern/southern European country you will mostly have the same concerns and will realistically have to pay commercial prices for the most part.
“Physical chemistry” is the search term for what you’d be interested in.
General physics and chemistry take different approaches forced by the subject matter. Physics abstracts to problems over concepts with details abstracted away, but at higher levels of education you learn to apply these corrections.
Chemistry starts with practical reality and a lot of rote memorization. Only at the higher levels do you get the unifying theory. Since the unifying theory is quantum electrodynamics (in this case, relativistic QED), that makes sense.
It's not. USSR and Russia experimented with space mirrors and was able to light significant territory. It was a successful program, but in 1993 Russia had no money to continue the project, so it was wrapped up.
Even if you can design a material for specific properties from the ground up, you would still need a way to deliver the kind of microstructure you desire.
Computational design of a target microstructure and material composition is one area, engineering solutions to produce these targets is other level of difficulty.
> Do you mind if I MITM all of your work output, your emails, your code, your messages, and attach my name to it and then receive your paychecks in exchange for my work?
Chemistry is very empirical. While we today can explain nearly everything from physics, you still always have check how things will work in experiment, unlike in physic where you often can calculate the outcome of experiments very precisely from first principles.
To not have to resort to rote memorization you first have to have the interest. That way you accumulate the knowledge over time, then the patterns feel logical at some point. The logic isn't very precise, maybe that's where you have problems? Some molecules are similar in some molecules in this regard and other molecules in another regard. You will get a feel how stuff behaves. You certainly have a lot of chemistry knowledge you are not aware of.
For example, I'm sure you have a good intuition how things burn and you probably know the basics of why it burns. The invisible oxygen in the air is the main chemical insight to explain why stuff burns. You can explain the whole process to whatever detail you like with physics, but many chemists lack the math and physics knowledge to do much of that.