In principle you can instantaneously set the throttle opening to some position and set the RPM to whatever you want. In time the RPM will rise or fall until the engine is at equilibrium, but throttle position and RPM aren't like mechanically interlocked. Otherwise how could the engine speed up when you go down a hill?
I think the distinction is that you think a life is only worth living if it is a sufficiently enjoyable life, and I think life is worth living intrinsically.
I did skim the Wikipedia article but it didn't seem to engage with anything I was thinking about.
Almost everybody's revealed preference is to stay alive rather than to not be alive, otherwise we'd see a lot more suicide.
> making an important choice such as bringing life into the world, without considering the consequences, is already somewhat unethical.
This is a view you can take, but it's not as obviously important as you seem to think.
An alternative view is "making an important choice such as FAILING to bring life into the world, given the opportunity to do so, without considering the consequences, is somewhat unethical."
If the standard was truly that you can't have kids unless you're sure they're going to have a great life, then we would have gone extinct millions of years ago.
> I've had a suspicion there is something unethical about this.
Why?
As a human being who was once born, I am extremely grateful for my existence, and how much thought my parents put into it beforehand is of practically no consequence.
You seem to imply that if parents haven't already committed to giving their kids a perfect childhood with perfect parenting then the kids are better off not living at all?
Yeah self writing. If you can show me a comparable project from 5 years ago I'll eat my hat.
You can't because LLMs that can hold a conversation didn't even exist 5 years ago, let alone automatically hooking themselves up to a bidirectional handwriting interface.
You can't just point at one part of this and say it is as old as geocities and think that that makes the whole project uninteresting. The project is greater than the sum of its parts.
I can't believe so many people in this thread are so critical of it.
I was working on an SDF-based CAD tool. One of the things I want to be able to do is select a pair of surfaces (which are identified by a "surface id" propagated up the expression tree) and add a blend between those two surfaces (e.g. a fillet or chamfer).
The video is a bit confusing because there was some screen-recording lag so it sometimes looks like I clicked on something other than what I clicked on.
You can see that the strategy I have implemented there works most of the time but at the end it fails to apply the blend.
That strategy is to rewrite the expression tree using distributivity so that blend arguments are siblings, and then apply the blend at the union/intersection (min/max) that is their parent.
But this fails when you need conflicting pairs of blends.
The problem is: given an expression tree describing an SDF, (but where the value passed up the tree is a tuple `(distance, surface_id)` rather than just distance), and given a set of fillets of the form `(surface_id_1, surface_id_2, radius)`, produce a new expression tree which fillets all of the places where those surfaces join.
In ambiguous situations, for example the 2 surfaces come together at an edge, and then that edge runs into a 3rd surface, I don't mind how you resolve the region near the 3rd surface as long as it is intuitive and predictable for the end user.
I spent quite some days working with various agents to come up with a solution to this and still haven't managed to find one.
Maybe you could do it in a couple of hours yourself?
> 50¢/m² is 50¢/kWp in a solar concentrator, or 0.05¢/Wp, which is noticeably cheaper than photovoltaic cells, currently around 18¢/Wp, 360 times more expensive.
A photovoltaic cell is a solar panel, and a piece of aluminium does nothing, am I missing something here?
On my microwave you can keep pressing the "start" button to add 30 seconds, but if you press it too many times in quick succession it ignores some of your presses.
My oven requires you to use button presses to set the desired temperature, but if you press it too many times in quick succession it ignores some of your presses.
My car has button presses to turn heating/aircon/blowers/etc. on/off but if you press 2 of them in quick succession it only registers the first one even though they're plainly separate buttons.
It is very frustrating to find that even physical real-world buttons nowadays are controlled by computers with incredibly poor debounce code, or something, so that real buttons now are just as janky as software buttons.
If it's truly too dangerous to use you'd expect it not to be reversed at all.
Why would you expect a typical policy decision to be reversed within 3 weeks? If policies are going to be reversed within 3 weeks just don't do them in the first place.
[email protected]
https://incoherency.co.uk/