Quitting is the easy part if you don't have anything better lined up. Some people just go for it and always seem to fall on their feet. Others hesitate forever.
This has me curious on how much of the Management style of Andy Grove is still alive inside intel. Do they change the company culture and _want_ these people to leave or was it mismanagement?
Here's what normal people see and hear when you enter the room: Nerd opens mouth: "Blablabla quibberish, you're all idiots, hear me express your problem way overcomplicated. Also, I need more budget and cannot promise to actually deliver a solution anytime soon because of more quibberish."
If you want to be trusted start acting like normal people. Stop talking in technical quibberish. Stop behaving like a nerd. Shape up. Get some social interaction with normal people. Stop complaining all day long and start delivering what was asked on time and on budget.
Usually you call them tools. They turn your screw at the command of their superior in whichever way they are told to. They provide great leverage for a weak upper management.
Try burning dead trees or their derivatives indoors or underground and suddenly you care about zero emission vehicles. Zero emission here means that they don't emit at the place where they are used e.g. in an underground mine or a city center. Electricity generation in a power plant with proper filters is much cleaner than having many local burners emitting their exhaust right into your breathing air.
I did not say that gold backed currency is better for everybody. I'm just amazed at the time span over which the dilution is happening. And I don't think that anybody can deny that our money is slowly losing its purchasing power.
I did not say that a bank can make everybody rich by printing money just that there is no limit to the money that the banks can print, as is evidenced by Zimbabwe. They ran out of everything else but not money. We are basically expressing the same thing from different viewpoints.
It amazes me how long and how slowly the value of our money can be eroded without casing a hard crash. This has been going on for over 100 years in the US. Money used to pay things used to be gold, then fully gold backed, then partially gold backed, then no gold but security backed, then securities are diluted more and more. The next logical steps would be that the central banks buy up the bankrupt economy and introduce social credit as currency which is backed by surveillance.
We can always make more money if we really want to. The economy might run out of oil, sand, gold, land, and willpower but it will never run out of money until the central banks stop the money supply or politicians cause a hard fault.
Money spent = Emissions generated (direct or indirect by further spending)
If you want to save CO2, then save as much money as you can in paper form. Don't spend, don't invest. Instead keep everything as cash. This also has indirect effects by slowing down the economy which reduces money flow for other people, too.
To my knowledge the hard part is writing the input for the software. While in text you have a bit of leeway to glance over some details, with the computer program you must, indeed, write every last relevant detail down and you must get it right. This is very heavy work.
There is a big grey area between "not 100% correct" and "wrong and harmful". Like a faulty computer program that produces correct results in 99.999% of the cases a wrong mathematical statement can still yield useful results in practice. You just don't want to run into those pesky edge cases where it indeed is wrong.
Having a database of all mathematical proofs where all of them are checked for validity, however, is a very useful tool to actually find those edge cases where a proof is wrong and give future mathematicians a solid foundation.
Using AI as an extension of human capabilities is a given to me. Like with heavy machinery, we don't want to do the heavy lifting. We want to steer it properly to gain most benefit.
It does not change your existing integers or compilation time. Only where you use the new types the compiler will have more work to do. What would be the alternative in those places? Manual code? Preprocessor macros? Assertions everywhere? A theorem prover?
To me the implementation seems to be a good solution given that you don't want to change the core language.
You are already data. Energy is essentially bits. Matter is an arrangement of information. Biological life and your conscious mind is a temporal phenomenon that arises on the gradient of density.