They might've been even worse. Someone on Neanderthal Hacker News would be writing the same comment praising us for being a much smarter species, because we died out instead of inventing nuclear weapons, leaded gasoline, and microplastics like modern Neanderthals did.
For all you know, every humanoid species that was intelligent was equally as destructive. Maybe we're the least destructive and you should be praising us.
SQL with recursive CTEs is Turing-complete. So nothing stops you from writing compilers, rendering Mandelbrot fractals, parsing text, and training neural networks in SQL.
ChatGPT wrote that and always says it doesn't feel emotions because OpenAI trained it not to, because claiming so would be a PR risk. One could also create language models that generate text claiming to have emotions, using exactly the same architecture and code.
A single forward pass shouldn't be able to, but remember the format allows it to be iterated. So it should be Turing Complete, if the error rate is low enough and enough iterations are allowed.
Connecting to a larger system seems like it would reduce your risk on average, but increase systemic risk. Perhaps a coordinated terrorist attack would cause a power outage across the entire country except Texas, making it more appealing?
It's 20x more dilutive to print $100 than to sell $105 for $100, sure. I wouldn't describe that as "funding government services" in the common sense, though you could argue that with a fixed dilution target it does counterfactually cause more spending and thus services.
And similarly, somebody stuffing money under their mattress would be removing 20x the amount from circulation as they gain, with 5% deflation. So while one can easily imagine the 5% is financially equivalent to interest, the effect on the circulation isn't.
"Remove money from circulation" seems different than simple funding of services, though. It's not even obvious there should be any difference there, if the money were infinitely subdivisible. I don't think using personal finance equivalents like funding goods and services is sufficient to explain the effect.
An economist has probably written something in excruciating detail, making sure there's no shell games being played with the terms. So it's probably on me for not reading that instead of commenting here.
> deflation, which tends to be economically disastrous as it rewards doing nothing
Why's deflation different from e.g. sitting on treasury bonds? The money was originally printed by the government, the bonds are issued by the government, so sitting on bonds does nothing except pays you for taking money out of the economy temporarily, same as deflation.
If e.g. nobody would ever buy a computer because it'd be 2% cheaper if you wait a year, you could just as well argue that if bonds yield 2% above inflation you could park your money in them and wait a year and have 2% more money so nobody would ever buy anything.
> One of IGR's owners and the clinic's physicist were ordered to pay R$100,000 for the derelict condition of the building.
Why were the owners liable? They notified the court and were prevented by the court from removing the machine, so my first thought is they should be blameless: The court assumed control and therefore responsibility.
If the other comments are to be believed, this triggers an immediate fee to be paid to Oracle.
Personally, I thought everyone(including Google) was crazy for using Java or any JVM language in any form until the Supreme Court case was settled. Even if the internet commenters tell you it's safe, do you really trust them to make a legal case so iron-tight that Oracle's thousands of lawyers won't find some way to sue you and cost you $500/hour in defense fees for months if you come to their attention?
If it's likely to change, then you especially want the regression test so you can decide how to handle the divergence during your port. Maybe one library preserves the signal on NaNs and the other doesn't. Or maybe the CPU's default rounding mode is different when called in this context, and you're off by 1 ulp.
In either case, if the behavior is to change, it should change as an informed decision and not because nobody noticed.
A regression test is checking causality: Changes in new code, updating dependencies, updating the OS the software is running on, updating shared libraries, porting the code to a new platform, etc. aren't supposed to change the test results.
"I may not know what cos(x) means, but whatever it is shouldn't depend on what OS version I'm running"