This kinda reminds me of when Beavis and Butthead first came on the air. Panned as the stupidest thing on TV.
When it came back in the 2010s, it was exactly as stupid. However, relative to what ELSE was on TV? Suddenly it was relatively high brow. It was easily the smartest show on MTV. By a LOT.
Putting super Gover in the first Iron Man? Nonsense. Putting him in whatever they do next? IMO it would generally raise the bar. No offense, MCU superfans.
That, that’s the “little different”.
It does SOMETHING that has SOME value to SOME people.
even the “rapid prototyping” I hear about doesn’t really work very well in the context I work in (terrible legacy behemoth). I can see how it could maybe greenfield better.
I actually do anticipate these tools will improve. But that they’ll look more like existing and expanded high-end ide generation features then whatever the fuck the CEO thinks it’s going to be. And the CEO is already nickle-and-diming licences for much more basic and critical dev tools.
I just don’t see a real stomach for tool buys because it already isn’t there. We already have a wishlist of practical tools which would concretely improve productivity that they won’t buy us. Once investors realize this AI isn’t a fucking “I Robot” sitting in the office typing on a computer not asking for a holiday or saying “no” to weird sexual advances… I think appetite is going to dry up on their end, which will cascade to CEOs such that they can cut out the chest beating dick measuring theatrics. Because that’s who the show is for.
Different company, but…
We were pressured to figure out how to incorporate blockchain technology.
I shit you not, we were pressured to figure out how to engage with customers in the metaverse.
Always accompanied by a message like this. Straight from the CEO. If we can’t share the vision we don’t belong.
This LLM hype feels a LITTLE different, but not much.
Note however gender has a second role, besides agreement: derivation
Interesting… I hadn’t considered that this might enable linguistic “shorthands”, is that the implication?
Sounds to me on the whole like you’re saying that the bitrate per syllable is solid and doing the heavy lifting here?
It’s super interesting; and the implications are actually huge.
I’d be interested in follow up studies to examine emergent linguistic patterns. Can we weigh syllabic encoding by common usage by age? If we eliminate “thouest” from the dictionary but include “skibidi” how does that skew patterns for informational density?
Science is so fucking cool and I’m stoked that people nerd out on shit that I’m an idiot about so I can learn about the nature of the world.
I agree there would be challenges around information selectively. I expect Runasimmi can speak more “quickly” “efficiently” about labour-based taxation in the form of terraced plateaus growing cocoa than Inuktitut, but would find itself in deep contrast in the opposite direction speaking of the ice flo route and the associated ice quality a polar bear took hunting a seal.
Also, just because a syllable “encodes more bits on average” does it imply faster transmission rate? Just because French encodes gender information into it’s language and syllables, isn’t knowing the gender of a shovel at best “check bits?” Used for detecting transmission errors but not intrinsically critical data?
I’m not a linguist. I’m barely a scientist. I’m fascinated by the assertion that it’s easy to establish “bits per second” on syllables having somehow abstracted away social context. I’m not saying you’re wrong or they’re wrong, just that this rubs my naive intuitions exactly the wrong way… Which speaks more to the quality of my intuitions (apparently quite bad) rather than the real science by people actually in the field.
The methodology sounds bizarrely complex to me for the purposes of establishing comparative information transfer rate.
Wouldn’t just timing how long it takes to communicate a controlled set of information answer that?
I’m confused by the concept of establishing an average “bitrate per syllable” and multiplying that through. Is this trying to address cases where language constructs DEMAND additional information be encoded in speech? Can one not construct a set of information intended to be communicated that could account for those quirks? Find some “lowest common denominator” sentences?
I feel like I’m missing something and I’m very curious about what my faulty assumption is
No, I still mean it. The variance from pole to equator is 0.5%.
Although it’s technically an oblate spheroid, technically anything you think of as a “sphere” isn’t a sphere either.
This is why it makes sense to talk about the earth scaled to objects you can comprehend. Is a ping pong ball a sphere? Is a basketball a sphere? When you blow bubbles, are those spheres?
Be consistent with your pedantry. Either they are and so is the Earth, or none of them are.
The earth is a more perfect sphere than a billiards ball is.
We forgot how big the earth is. Despite the obvious variance we see from our perspective… We are microscopic.
Again, I understand your point, but I better not ever catch you describing distance in terms of time. That would be peak hypocrisy.
The linear travel of a point on its surface as a result of the rotation.
It’s like saying you have a friend who lives 15 minutes away.
deleted by creator
Oh, shit… yah. Everyone can relax then. Rule of 3.
The only “wrong” way to start something is to not actually start.
Some people might toss you at whatever pet interest they have in the broad skillset which is gamedev. Tell you it’s fundamental.
I won’t.
Take The Frizz approach. Take chances, make mistakes, get messy!
You can download a FOSS game engine RIGHT NOW (Godot). Start small. Fuck with it until your questions become specific. Once you know what you don’t know, but need to know, that’s what you should learn.
It’s been about 36 hours?
Maybe we’re using an old version or something, but code blocks still don’t expand horizontally to fill the available space, so we just get a horizontal slider bar.
or opened in a separate viewer for easier reading.
Yes, that’s my beef. If I need to juggle content to external text editors to read them, then IMO it has failed the categorical imperative of the tool.
Edit:
Back to work Monday morning:
Collapse all side bars, you get 89 monospaced characters. Approximately 2/3 of the horizontal screen space is reserved for empty space.
On a 4k monitor you can still only get about 80 characters of monospaced font per line, because of the “negative space” fetish UX designers have.
Something dead simple like posting a stack trace, and then having someone able to, you know, read it… It’s just not something teams really does well.
I can understand how the tooling probably does a ton of stuff that corporate users want (integrating with calendars, tons of access controls for spaces for important people to talk, etc) but for a dev working primarily with a handful of other devs and qas, there is a feature set mismatch. I can’t begin to tell you how badly I don’t give a shit about 99% of its features.
What is a first edition holographic charizard worth? What is the utility of that card?
Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
You can’t eat a Bitcoin for sustainance. Or hammer a nail with it. You can’t do either of those things with a pokemon card either.
I feel like you get this, based on your post… But you still are hung up by it.
Bitcoin’s attractive utility for many is that you can transfer them pretty much unimpeded by any external entity. Like a government for example.
Like, hypothetically, what if you wanted to send a million dollars to your family back in, I dunno, Hong Kong. Do you think you can put that in a suitcase and hop on a plane? Do you think your bank will just send that wire? No. Government needs to know about it.
You can send a million dollars worth of Bitcoin, though. No problem.
What about if the government decides to seize your assets, for whatever reason? Maybe you were a little too loud about your support of Palestine and a man child president decided to make an example of you? They can raid your home. They can seize your bank accounts. Can they get your Bitcoin? Nope (if you’re actually holding it yourself)
What sets Bitcoin apart from other currencies is that it’s very government resistant. You CAN hold it yourself. Not digitally in a bank. Not as bills under your mattress. It cant be seized.
How much SHOULD Bitcoin be worth, given the utility it provides? No idea. But it’s something.
TBF I’ve met scrum masters and product owners who think they’ve hacked the system by adding this to story AC, so…