That's a whopper of a non sequitur. I was asking about the specific patent on these potatoes. Our ancestors have been growing this specific patented version of potatoes for thousands of years? Really?
No, they have been cross pollinating parents with desirable traits to produce an offspring with more desirable traits. The same thing Pepsi did to make FC5 potato.
Read it carefully because while the patent claims that it also would apply if transgenic modifications are added, the variety was developed through just classic breeding techniques, which are described in the patent in case you aren’t familiar.
And it's fine to patent specific (and novel) varieties of potato. The patent just applies to that specific variety, not to the general concept of improving potatoes. It's irrelevant that other specific varieties may have been bred for millenia.
emperor has no clothes but this forum is full of people who wasted their money investing it and/or get paid to work on it.
today "AI is just spicy autocomplete" gets flagged off front page.
For MONTHS, front page has been full of sub-script-kiddie level "AI" tools that are just `curl "{static_prompt} + {user_input}" http://chatgptapi`
or mediocre examples of things that would have been impressive a computer could do in 1960, but are absolutely easier to do since 2010 with google or other tools.
Lol dude I just googled “script list IAM roles that contain policy” and this was the top result. Probably less typing than the usual silly authoritative tone people use when composing an “AI” prompt , like they’re Tony Stark or Captain Picard .
And trust me, once u google stack overflow enough pretty soon you won’t need to ask anyone how to output a csv
that’s true. But that code snippet didn’t meet all the requirements. I laid out. And it definitely was less typing using ChatGPT once you add all of the requirements I laid out.
And then there is the context switch. This is just one little script as part of a larger system where I’m designing an entire system. It’s much easier if I’m already writing out a long set of documentation, diagrams, slides, etc just to open ChatGPT and keep writing English.
Not to mention when you’re juggling a couple of projects and one is Node and one is Python.
And just in case you are trying to gatekeep, I’ve been programming for a few years - let’s just say my first hobbyist code was in 65C02 assembly language in 1986
I agree completely. Hilarious example. But, hell, if a product's pitch is "you'll feel like Tony Stark or Captain Picard" it will probably be successful.
The entire thesis is that ChatGPT can give better results than Google.
ChatGPT gave me a specific answer with the command line arguments that I specified and allowed me to specify a list of policies and output the result in the format I needed
Google gave me a code snippet that I had to modify for my use case.
There is at least one misconception here that I can see. You don't need pure oxygen to initiate pyrolysis, combustion with atmospheric air is suitable to initiate pyrolsyis as well as gasification systems that pyrolyze biomass without any oxygen/combustion using electric resistive elements eg powered by solar pnaels if you want to learn more about gasificatoin theres soem great resources in the internet
>but... we could already do that?
that sums up so much.
the emperor has no clothes. few see it.
its inferior to the modern purpose built tools.
we act impressed a simple program can be created from a prompt, what has every programmer been doing already for the last 10 years with google search and stackoverflow?
I think building regexes is a good example of where chatgpt/copilot is useful. It’s not that it’s particularly difficult or requires much understanding, just very time consuming compared to writing an English language description and walking through an example.
Useful compared to writing a regex in notepad yeah.
Last time I was challenged by regex I easily found very fancy web page with so many nice features. Actual documentation, ability to select a specific regex engine (or implementation or whatever you call it) , real-time results on test data, highlighting that shows how the regex works, etc.
and that was years ago I’m sure there’s even better web apps now.
I can’t imagine having a better experience asking AI chat than using a web app made for the purpose
Being able give some examples and just state in plain English what you want the capture groups to be is pretty much my ideal regex experience (in other words, I don’t want to think about the semantics of regex ever).
That’s what I figured. Maybe it’s just me but for complicated use-cases this still takes me forever to get the right regex string, especially with capture groups.
If you don’t care about syntactic convenience, yes. In practice, a(n idiomatic) Forth “library” can have an API like, for example,
1000 ,bp) ax mov,
for laying down assembly code in memory (might look a bit unusual, but think “postfix assembler” and it’ll become natural soon enough). If you want this to compile down to byte writes and arithmetic without requiring an assembler library at runtime (DynASM-style), you can do that as well.
Custom control structures[1], object systems, perfect hashing, parser generators, all that fun stuff that’s possible with flexible syntax and arbitrary compile-time code execution, people have done it. You never have to think whether an X-macro is sufficiently ugly yet to warrant a custom preprocessor. (If you want to say “web templating”, you can say “web templating”, except it’s not that pleasant with manual memory management, and most of what I’m thinking about was written in the 80s.)
There’s nothing impossible about this in any language (the absence of a competent C REPL continues to amaze me), but not all languages are good at everything they can technically do, and Forth is good at these.
(Forth is also bad at some things. If you want code that transparently works on floats and doubles, or 32- and 64-bit addresses, on the same system depending on a compile-time setting, it’s going to be painful. Passing abstract types by value is impossible to do elegantly as far as I know. Omitting unnecessary code from the executable, trivial with static libraries and a linker, requires adapting half your implementation and is a serious selling point for commercial Forth systems. And so on.)
[1] I know we’re all alleged adults and are not supposed to get excited about these, but does LuaJIT’s FOLD tree peephole optimizer, for example, qualify as a legitimate custom control structure? (It’s implemented with a combination of macro magic and a custom preprocessor.)
This is presumably being downvoted for the unnecessary “gotcha” phrasing, but it is an interesting point of distinction. I have an intuitive guess as to the principles at work, but I don’t really know the actual physics.
I don’t think that explains it at all. So garbage floats (more or less), so can be modeled as a 2D plane. But why do patches form? Why isn’t the garbage distributed uniformly across the plane? And why doesn’t that same mechanism apply in 3D?
Really beating up a strawman. No one's proposing or implementing "dedicated" biomass.
Corn ethanol utilizes the starch from corn, and leaves behind proteins, fats, minerals, and yeast cells which are used as animal feed, where its superior to plain corn.
Likewise woody biomass isn't coming from clear cutting forests, its from necessary thinning to keep forests healthy (thats otherwise burned in slash piles) and mill waste thats a byproduct of lumber production.
> ...the world’s largest supplier of wood pellets for power generation ... has long insisted that it doesn’t use big, whole trees, but only uses wood waste, “tops, limbs, thinnings, and/or low-value smaller trees.” It insists it only sources wood from areas where trees will be regrown, and that it doesn’t contribute to deforestation.
> As it turns out, Mongabay reporter Justin Catanoso found a management whistleblower who pointed him in the direction of clearcuts that the company was making: Catanoso watched as a feller-buncher machine grappled down a fifty-acre forest and fed the old oaks straight into a chipper, producing tons of wood to be turned into pellets. The whistleblower said that was par for the course: “We take giant, whole trees. We don’t care where they come from. The notion of sustainably managed forests is nonsense. We can’t get wood into the mills fast enough.”
> He continued: “The company says that we use mostly waste like branches, treetops and debris to make pellets. What a joke. We use 100% whole trees in our pellets. We hardly use any waste. Pellet density is critical. You get that from whole trees, not junk.”
U take tuber u put it in ground it grows more tubers u try to sell BOOM illegal son .