I'm not sure that you can have the moral high ground in a hypothetical scenario where Cuba conspires with Iran to attack the US. At that point both parties are banking on "might makes right".
Well, in this hypothetical scenario you can just as well say that Cuba is defending from the future threat from USA, the same way USA is now defending from future threat from Iran.
Not future threat though what US has put Cuba through the last 70 years any aggressive military from Cuba is probably justified. And no any attack from Cuba on US will still be morally ok if they attack US military and US banks etc.
The module system in Rust is incredibly confusing for a beginner.
The standard module in Rust is basically a Rust source file (<module_name>.rs) with the name of the module or a directory <module_name> with a mod.rs file inside (<module_name>/mod.rs). However, that alone doesn't make it a module. The root source file (lib.rs or main.rs) must declare that <module_name>.rs is actually a module in the preamble via mod <module_name>;
Thus it works "backwards" in comparison to C style #include. mod doesn't include a module into the current file/module, it includes the module into the current project directory tree, which means you will never need a second mod <module_name>.rs declaration again.
I wouldn't exactly say that the way C/C++ headers work is particularly intuitive for beginners either; having spent several years as a TA in a course in college where students were writing C for the first time (after having used mostly Java beforehand), I've seen plenty of times where students have trouble figuring out how to properly split things between headers and "regular" source files, have trouble figuring out how to properly specify which sources to link together in their makefiles, and have to learn how to either avoid accidentally including the same thing twice transitively or use one of the various workarounds that mitigates it.
You might argue that all of these are solvable problems, but I'd argue that learning how to properly declare a module in Rust is overall a lot simpler than learning how to deal with all of the analogous problems in C/C++. For people who have never used C/C++ or Rust before, you could just as easily say that they work backwards in comparison to Rust, and in a vaccuum, I think the way Rust does it would be far more intuitive to someone who had familiarity with neither and were presented both at the same time.
As a thought experiment: if you had a group of people who didn't know either Rust or C/C++, and you split them in half, and taught half of them Rust first and C second and did the reverse for the other half, how many of the people in each group would you expect to consider the configuration of Rust builds to be more confusing than the configuration of C builds? I'd be willing to bet that you'd have a far more people in the group that you taught C first who considered Rust builds to be more intuitive than people in the other group who thought that C builds were more intuitive, and that it would be strong evidence that the build system for Rust is overall much easier to understand.
I guess the prime target for this would be USB-C controllers? Ubiquitous and expensive enough to justify building a machine and yet versatile enough that you could find a second hand market for them.
This is a very strange and contradictory situation. I'm not sure there's any point in engaging with you since there is nothing but a stream of weak dismissals farming for engagement.
You dismiss LLMs because of factual inaccuracy, which is fair, but now you're doubling down on an anti search engine stance, which is weird, because the modern substitute is letting LLMs either use search engines on your behalf or learn the entire internet with some error and you've dismissed both.
Yes, I'm the "backwards" guy who still uses search engines. We still exist.
I've noticed that HN can attract some of the most extreme people I've ever seen, and I suppose there is precedent in the tech world when I'm reminded of the story of Stallman not using a browser but instead sending webpages to his email where he then reads the content. It's literally nonsensical for 99.9999% of the population and I've read similar absurd things on HN as well.
This person not using LLMs is fine, I understand the argument like you said, but the double down on not using search engines either makes me not take anything they say seriously. Not to be too crass but it reminds me of this situation on the nature of arguing on the internet [0].
If your definition of "algorithm" is "list of instructions", then there is nothing surprising. It's very obvious. The "algorithm" isn't perfect, but a mapping with an error exists.
If your definition of "algorithm" is "error free equivalent of the equations", then the analytical equations do not map to "algorithms". "Algorithms" do not exist.
I mean, your objection is kind of like questioning how a construction material could hold up a building when it is inevitably bound to decay and therefore result in structural collapse. Is it actually holding the entire time or is it slowly collapsing the entire time?
The petrodollar thing isn't about spreading the US dollar. The US military is the world's biggest consumer of oil and has bases all around the world. US military strength depends on the ability to acquire oil at favorable terms and the best way to do that is by paying in USD. Countries that trade oil in USD are implicitly economic allies of the US military. You could think of oil as a weapon here.
By this logic there can be hundreds of studies that all show the pattern, including a 100% accurate prediction of the results for the next model and none of them would be "persuasive", because OpenAI decided to always release a new model the day before the paper is published.
So what you're saying here is that you were never open to "persuasion" and it was just a front to waste everyone's time.
Your car already has the battery built right into it, so a trickle charge for eight hours while you're busy at work might be enough to cover your commute.
2 kW over 8 hours would be enough for 100 km per day.
reply