Sharlin

5 ms·

1.
by Sharlin 3d ago
Which is very convenient (and necessary for backwards compatibility) because programs could be (and were) written to assume they're in B: (and the DOS disk is in A:), or that they're in A: and the user's data is in B:, or a t
2.
by Sharlin 3d ago
Did you read the friendly article?
3.
by Sharlin 3d ago
Pedantically, the phrasing in the article is incorrect because macro invocations are permissible in type positions. But as you said, the macro invocation syntax is nevertheless not ambiguous with !-as-type (or !-as-operator for that matte
4.
by Sharlin 3d ago
> My expertise in writing software gives me unusually good visibility and it makes me much less willing to blindly trust its priors in double-entry accounting, finance, law, operations, or whatever else I cannot personally evaluate at ex
5.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Four because you have to count 8086 itself (486 was one, not zero, geverations before the Pentium and so on).
6.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Yep, they can have static methods, as it were (in Rust lingo called "associated functions"; "methods" in Rust always take a `self` receiver). Traits can also have associated types and associated constants, which (natural
7.
by Sharlin 4d ago
There's also the fact that for all intents and purposes, the real floating-point unit of any x86 in the last 20 years is the SIMD unit, and legacy x87 instructions are emulated on top of that.
8.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Sure, but this was five (or six?) generations before actual superscalar x86 processors.
9.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Ah, you’re just a troll. Flaggety-flag. Have fun in the hellban-land.
10.
by Sharlin 4d ago
No they do not. Smart people are in no way immune to making naive, ignorant, or not-well-thought-out arguments. Also, if you feel that someone attacks you personally, responding in kind can only ever make you look like an idiot.
11.
by Sharlin 4d ago
I don’t know what spectrum you’re on, but attacking an argument and attacking a person are two wildly different things. There’s nothing pedantic about that.
12.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Casting Leomund’s Secret Chest, now comes with TROFAST modular storage management system.
13.
by Sharlin 4d ago
Evolution and human intelligence are two entirely separate optimizers. Evolution improving intellence is not an example of self-improvement, recursive or not. Evolution improving evolution itself would be a self-improvement process. Human
14.
by Sharlin 5d ago
Doesn’t matter if there’s a rechable local maximum that happens to be comfortably beyond human level. Indeed it would be very surprising if a thing capable of RSI just happened to get stuck at human level or slightly above or below, even th
15.
by Sharlin 5d ago
Recursive self-improvement is not necessary for AGI. Humans are general intelligences even though we cannot RSI.
16.
by Sharlin 5d ago
> Should that be considered a crime Yes, of course! Negligent cause of injury or whatever it’s called in your particular jurisdiction. Wasn’t difficult to find examples of cases just like that. It would be astonishingly unjust if the pos
17.
by Sharlin 5d ago
> but it's hard to argue it's anywhere close to the latter. No it absolutely isn’t. These things did not learn hacking from thin air.
18.
by Sharlin 5d ago
No, there's most likely zero practical benefit of having found a pathological edge case in which the Navier-Stokes equations do not work. We're most assuredly not talking about "saving lives" here. Unless advanced aliens
19.
by Sharlin 5d ago
Environment Pollution Agency
20.
by Sharlin 5d ago
For the record, I consider that P(dangerously unaligned | AGI from current research) >> 0.01. A more reasonable estimate given, what we know, would be 0.99. With regard to the second probability, P(AGI | current LLM research), it woul
21.
by Sharlin 5d ago
I believe they reconstruct the paths simply based on the timing of detection events. Muons created by neutrino interactions travel more or less linearly and create a "bow shock" of Cherenkov radiation; it's not a single flash
22.
by Sharlin 5d ago
Yeah, let's risk extinction in order to avoid some made-up numbers going down! Not an insane take at all.
23.
by Sharlin 5d ago
There have been extremely smart people worried about this exact scenario for 20 years or more. Nothing about this is new. In any case, what's the probability at which a possible extinction event becomes a risk worth taking? Even if the
24.
by Sharlin 5d ago
It's a good thing there isn't a huge drive right now to build giant data centers everywhere with enough compute to run SOTA models.
25.
by Sharlin 5d ago
These agents run in a harness that basically runs them in a loop. It's just software.
26.
by Sharlin 5d ago
With local models it's always been easy to edit only a part of an image (inpainting), either by painting a mask or automatically using a small segmentation model. It's actually pretty strange that commercial models have resorted t
27.
by Sharlin 5d ago
I remember when in a past life we were allowed to bump the minimum supported IE version of our SPA framework from 6 to 8. It was a joyful day – but we soon realized that it didn’t really buy us that much because 8 was almost as quirky…
28.
by Sharlin 5d ago
Maybe the coolest (heh) application of Cherenkov radiation is neutrino telescopes like IceCube, detecting tiny flashes of light in cubic kilometers of ultra-clear Antarctic ice, caused by vanishingly rare interactions between neutrinos and
29.
by Sharlin 6d ago
"Gregarious" is a standard term in biology.
30.
by Sharlin 9d ago
Share doesn't really make any sense. And other macOS applications have an Export menu all right.

More ›