I think of it as a bit like Python with stronger types.
I'm not convinced that you couldn't have good software engineering support and simplicity in the same language. But for a variety of mostly non-technical reasons, no mainstream language provides that combination, forcing developers to make the tradeoff that they perceive as suiting them best.
> “anthropogenic global warming thing was always just wealth extraction by elites. They cranked up at least three generations scaring them half to death and making them crazy and depressed and now, oh ... it was nothing, we need more power for AI data centers”
This kind of conspiracy-driven anti-science crankery is part of the problem.
The group of people pushing large AI data centers have essentially no overlap with the people who raising the alarm about climate change based on very strong scientific evidence.
> Covid itself likely came out of a lab, and it seemed to be designed to kill the elders.
More crankery.
Apparently some people deal with the concerns raised by OP by retreating into weird fantasies that give them an illusion of understanding or control. It’s a mild form of insanity.
You are captured, numb from a lifetime of propaganda. It is your choice to make it part of your identity and take my words as hurty insults where you have to make it personal. I don't hate you because you disagree with me. BUT YOU HATE ME.
Who might benefit from constantly cranking up your hate for the dissenters?
I don't hate you. But I object to your unwillingness to understand science, and your willingness to jump to conclusions that aren't supported by evidence.
Wilful ignorance like that is exactly what leads to many of the kinds of issues OP is raising.
Fearmongers are enriched by the many kinds of issues OP is raising.
It's not willful ignorance to notice urban heat islands and point surface temperature measurements are insufficient for measuring atmospheric temperatures.
It's not willful ignorance to observe the sun, our _variable_ dominant energy source, impossible to predict, is glossed over or averaged out in the models. There are huge inputs to the system (volcanoes, cosmic radiation, plant stoma regulating for heat) that TheScience goes wall-eyed over until finally admitting they were huge unaccounted-for inputs.
It's not willful ignorance to observe there have been multiple evolving, competing software models. All of them predicting the same thing - global warming. It's sus that we had a newspeak switcheroo to "climate change" when "global warming" didn't explain cooling trends - and yet the models doggedly predict warming.
It's not willful ignorance to notice unscientific grifters like Al Gore scaring the shit out of people and setting himself up for the mega-grift, carbon credits. Al Gore is RICH!
It's not willful ignorance to observe the science is not repeatable. Climate science is big money scientism and not scientific at all.
So, spare me your shame game identity politics. The culture is spring loaded to cancel heretics and trust TheScience - which doesn't seem like a very joyous way to comport onesself.
I don't need to prove anything to you. The world is waking up and moving on from the grift, so unclench and enjoy.
An emotionally charged rant (what other kind is there?) is a projection. It can be good when you're overwhelmed and need to get through a crisis, but it's bad long term. That's how I see it, at least.
You’re projecting that you would feel cognitive dissonance if you made the same choices as OP.
It’s perfectly reasonable for people to want to license their own work under a particular license without believing that everyone else should do the same, for example. Someone with that opinion, or a whole host of other positions that allow for different licenses to coexist, wouldn’t experience any cognitive dissonance.
The question then becomes what you are going to do about your cognitive dissonance. Continue to believe that “everyone else must be wrong”?
One problem is that "statistical inference" is overly reductive. Sure, there's a statistical aspect to the computations in a neural network, but there's more to it than that. As there is in the human brain.
Education often hinges on breaking down complex ideas into digestible chunks, and projects like this can spark creativity and critical thinking. What may seem whimsical can lead to deeper discussions about AI's role and limitations.
I don’t even know what he’s referring to. What are the rectangles he’s “moving around”? And couldn’t you say the same thing about all writers, for example?
The one downside to the Internet and social media is that truly useless takes can get much more traction than they deserve.
I attended a CASE tools conference in the 1990s, which of course included a vendor exhibition. The vendors all had demos of creating an application using their tool. At multiple vendor stands I asked to see the code generated by their CASE tool. Invariably, the salespeople would start waffling about how the code was no longer important (sound familiar?), how you didn't need to examine the engine of a car while driving it, and so on. It had a very "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" feel to it. It convinced me that I didn't need to pay any attention to CASE tools, and history confirmed that.
Nah, that came later as the canonical example, with Ruby on Rails (which also somewhat suffered from a "programmers are irrelevant now" meme). Rails would make todo apps and twitter clones too cheap to meter (pretty much all Rails tutorials involved making one or the other in like an hour, pretty much entirely in the DSL).
In practice, Rails, while quite nice, was not the productivity revolution that it was originally touted as. These things never are.
Funnily enough todo lists didn’t really become a popular app category until the early 2000s. CASE tools in particular were very focused on enterprise applications.
> "The name derived from the idea that The Last One was the last program that would ever need writing, as it could be used to generate all subsequent software."
That was released in 1981. Spoiler alert: it was not, in fact, the last one.
I'm not convinced that you couldn't have good software engineering support and simplicity in the same language. But for a variety of mostly non-technical reasons, no mainstream language provides that combination, forcing developers to make the tradeoff that they perceive as suiting them best.
reply