I love Typescript, I think it's a fascinating language with a great runtime. It's already very fast to execute, but the compile times have been awful. Especially when you start to run production builds with minification and whatnot.
So I'm interested on what exactly has been sped up here. I can see compile times have been, but is that it? I suppose the runtime itself was always native code, and already very fast.
It sounds very slightly AI in some places, but I think this is an example of AI tropes turning up in human writing.
Which is a shame, because it makes those constructs less pleasant to read than they used to be. If you squint, and pretend AI doesn't exist (imagine!), then maybe you might be able to enjoy them again.
I suppose that must depend on one's definition of "substantially". Human's haven't changed "substantially", and neither do new breeds of dogs and cats.
Besides which, why does it matter that Humans may or may not be fit according to old criteria? Whatever they might have been.
I agree completely, and if you re-read what I wrote I didn't exactly suggest that it was used. But if he's reading this I'd hope he'd nevertheless accept my apology for even the hint of a suggestion.
Happy to find someone else who hates that infernal technology as much as I :)
Who is this person. A beautifully written and illustrated explanation of a fascinating machine. A website filled with other explanations of other things, also wonderfully written and clearly explained.
An instagram filled with beautiful landscape photographs, an "X" page consisting only of links back to this blog, and a Patreon with hardly any more information that that.
I love this. Fantastic content. Zero ego. And if there was any AI use, it's invisible. Certainly there is none in the writing.
The article is AI slop, obviously, like practically everything on the internet these days it seems. Awful writing, circling endlessly around the same point. The entire article could have been a single sentence. Which of course, is how it began. As a prompt.
The article is also wrong. Or, at least, indicative of a broken relationship between management and engineering. If you have an engineer who can decide to rewrite the entire product without management buy-in, then that's an organisational and a discipline problem.
Added to which, of course, maintainability and build-ability both matter an enormous amount. Work to improve both of those things will improve the business.
The paper states that the results are in vivo, not in vitro. The bacteria seemed to literally have cured colorectal cancer in mice. Mice are apparently strikingly similar to human beings in ways that matter, and so this research is very encouraging.
Likely too late for a particular person in my life, but hopefully not too late for others.
It's a very common misconception that "survival of the fittest" means something related to physical fitness or stamina. It does not, in fact it's almost tautological. It means only "survival of those most likely to survive."
Natural selection is still fully in operation, but the things being selected for may have changed. Whatever they are now, they are still being selected for. Those most likely to reproduce are those whose who reproduce the most, and whatever those characteristics are, they will be the ones that become more prevalent.
It's also very important to remember that this operates over hundreds of millennia. Human beings changing substantially will not occur within a period of time less than that. You'd need to look back into deep prehistory to find changes to humans attributable to natural selection. Changes to modern humans are all explicable through changes to nutrition and lifestyle, not through evolution.
"The US Copyright Office and federal courts require human authorship for copyright protection; works created solely by AI are not eligible for registration under the current rules."
The Supreme Court declined to consider a challenge to this rule, and so for the moment at least, the rule remains in place.
This means that companies leaning heavily into their LLM use may very well find that they do not, under the law at least, actually own any of their code. As I've read elsewhere there's every possibility that AI code will be the asbestos of the Software Engineering world. Something we'll be trying to get rid of for decades, once everyone comes to their senses.
Why oh why, please why, did you use AI to write this? It's about five times longer than it needs to be. It repeats itself over and over again. It's agony to read.
Please, just write normal English that we can read. Please, for the love of god, respect our time and the attention we will be spending on the text you provide.
Anyway, one can scarcely be surprised that the AI companies are being dishonest in their tools. They're consistently dishonest in their marketing. They're famously dishonest in their financials. Why anyone trusts these people with anything is entirely beyond me. But here we are - people handing over their creativity, their productivity, to these things.
You don't have to. You didn't need these tools before, when you were creating content, when you were writing code. You don't need it now. Fight back. Stop using it. It's not hard. It's easy.
The thing I love about OpenCV is that it remains hands down the best library for simply loading images and video. I've never even used any of its fancy computer vision features, but if I need to load a video file and look at the pixels - which I did need to do recently for an art project - OpenCV does it in about four lines of code.
Massively overlong article that really could have done with an editor. Although obviously editors cost money, and I'm reading it for free, so I can scarcely complain. Nevertheless, some concision would have been appreciated.
I'm very unclear to me what the thesis of the article actually is. Yes, push notifications run through the vendor's servers. Yes, Apple fucked up hard by modifying the text within them - and I contend that such modification is impossible to perform automatically without unreliability becoming the norm.
The author also appears to believe that "broadcast copy" - otherwise known as Spam by those who like to write slightly more honestly - is a legitimate use of push notifications. It is manifestly not, and any app that tries will at the very least be immediately silenced. I wish I could find the tweet that put this sentiment more entertainingly than I ever could.
If App developers continue to abuse the push notification system in this way, Apple and Google will be forced to take steps to solve what becomes an end-user's problem. Yet another tragedy of the commons.