Unless the GPT would be responsible for setting up the incentive structures, you’d end up with the same monotonous clickbait. The problem are people who give bad (science) reporting their attention and therefore money. PopSci journals are just answering the demand.
Non-scientists aren't going to be very good at telling bad science reporting from good. There's no way to fix that: you can't expect non-experts to be good judges of the experts.
With GPT, at least the writing quality would be better.
Perhaps, but recognizing clickbait should be within the grasp of everybody, even if they aren’t experts on the subject matter. Maybe that’s where an LLM would fit - evaluating the likelihood of an article offering something of substance.
The whole point of clickbait is to get non-discerning, ignorant laypeople to click on stuff and watch it. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be the problem it is now. You can complain that people aren't intelligent or educated enough on things far outside their domain of expertise (which may be something as mundane as flipping burgers, though to be fair making a great burger isn't that easy), but obviously your expectations do not line up with reality. The entire field of marketing, after all, is based completely on weaponizing and using human psychology against people in order to extract money from them. People have fundamental weaknesses based on their biology, so just complaining that people aren't overcoming their built-in limitations is futile, IMO.
Why not? What’s the point of the state paying for higher education? I’d say encouraging social mobility and making more people into high value creators.
It's not very egalitarian to let wealthy private institutions be the gate keepers of social mobility. I don't believe we're talking about 'education' here, rather we're talking about status signaling.
I'm 100% for free higher education paid by the state. I'm 100% against the current college and school system.
China does the opposite. To get access to government jobs (which include essentially all middle management and up positions in the private sector), there's an exam, the "Gaokao" ... administered by the government.
It is absolutely infamous for the amount of fraud and corruption, as well as how far government employees will go to force their kids through the exam. In both senses - preparation, cheating, outright fraud.
This is potentially a false equivalency. If storing passwords in a notebook is a common enough pattern, they become something a thief might start looking for. I don’t have the statistics, but would imagine that since “junkies” skew younger as a demographic, a good portion of them is computer literate (or knows someone who would be interested in buying accounts).
As is usually the case, it depends. Macros for “reducing boilerplate” or other syntactic reasons are poorly justified. While the resulting code might look cleaner, it’s often much harder to decipher (JS “decorators” suffer from the same issue). Macros can be invaluable for trading compile time for runtime performance, compensating for missing language features, and general metaprogramming… in a compiled language. It’s beyond me why would anybody think that macros are a good fit for interpreted JS.
This is a genuinely terrifying vision of the future. Already things like prices may differ based one’s location. Adding content writing AI to the mix is positively dystopian.
I have a 32” 4k monitor and on macOS fonts are blurry. Readable, but notably worse than on linux with X and the basic hiDPI settings from ArchWiki (with fractional scaling in both cases).
yes and that's because the relevant value IMHO is not resolution but DPI. A large 32" screen is bound to have relatively low DPI even at 4k, compared to smaller screens
Nix is effectively transforming dynamic binaries to static ones. Might as well skip the step, stop pretending that drive space is expensive, and link everything statically.
No. The Nix approach lets you retain the reuse, and it can be extended to allow quick, unified security patching as well (which has been done already in the Guix project).
And if you really want a single redistributable binary, any existing package can easily be bundled into one without recompiling it.
Farid Zakaria recently gave a talk¹ (at NixCon 2022) where I think he put it better: Nix (and Guix) blur the line between dynamic and static linking.
I think this is true, because with Nix and Guix, you actually have an end result with the positive characteristics of both kinds of linking.
His talk, based on his work on shrinkwrap² and nix-harden-needed², called for the creation of a new executable format for the Nix world. Seems apropos as a reminder that there are other possibilities!
(I think these kinds of solutions are definitely within reach for Valve from a technical perspective. Other tools are using them today.)
What about completely optional dependencies which might get loaded at runtime based on some dynamic criteria? Dynamic libs are not primarily for space saving. Also, there are thousands of other packaging problems not solved by static binaries, so yes, I do disagree with grandparent commenter :D
Conceptually that's kind of true, if you only consider the end result for a given binary, (since it would load only shared libs as if they were statically linked).
But multiple derivations can share dependencies, which does save space and also makes it easy to identify dependencies of a given derivation, where statically linking would make that opaque.
Also, the story goes way beyond binaries, as dependencies often carry additional resources not bundled into the binary.
Python has nothing to do with Forth, they couldn't be more opposite to each other if they tried. I recall Chuck Moore in a Silicon Valley Forth Interest Group meeting express his disappointment at how modern programming languages (and Python was among the ones mentioned) that are advertised as "simple" are anything but.
Python is an enormously complex language, full of inconsistencies and bad design. However, it masks that complexity behind a facade of user-friendliness which has done wonders for its popularity. Forth is not only as simple as it gets, but also an elegant and totally honest language. That Chuck Moore managed to distill the essence of programming in this form, speaks to his genius. Unfortunately, as is often the case with genius, it can be decades to centuries until the ideas percolate and emerge in a popular fashion.
> Really? You don't look at the stack machine that runs the .pyc files and go "jeez this is just Forth with some syntactic sugar on"?
No, because stack machines, including stack machines for use as interpreters of compiled languages, pre-date Forth by many years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_machine
