Theory isn't really all that applicable to this though - in theory nothing is stopping anyone from writing all code in assembly, but obviously that doesn't happen.
I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators.
It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).
To be honest, it's possible that having too much data can only cause problems in quick decision-making. Any redundant data will only slow down processing pipelines.
I've used vendor-specific C++ compilers with no bounds checking and a barely conforming stdlib, so by your logic C++ has zero bounds checking... Defaults matter!
There is no proof that humans are just glorified Turing machines and even as a nonreligious person, I find such a statement to be as lacking in evidence as those that claim humanity has some soul or similar that cannot be replicated.
The actual logic of gggp's statement also doesn't make any sense. We as humans also under and overestimate the soundness of programs.
Sometimes, a perfectly fine solution is massaged to better adhere to best practices because we can't convince ourselves that it's correct. Rust requires that we convince the compiler, and then we know it's correct via the compiler's proofs, instead of requiring us to do the proof all the time.
> I find such a statement to be as lacking in evidence as those that claim humanity has some soul or similar that cannot be replicated.
It doesn't need evidence; it is the null hypothesis.
Brains clearly compute, and it appears that computation is sufficient to produce the observed behaviour of brains. All our experience of the universe and physics suggests that there is no magic or metaphysics or souls or whatever.
So the onus is on you to show that there's something more going on. It isn't a 50:50 "is it heads or tails", it's more like "I claim that the tooth fairy exists" vs "I'm pretty sure it's your mum".
One way you can think of this is speeding up the "slowest programming language". And removing/reducing blocking calls has benefits for languages like Ruby too.
Does the functional equality being impossible to determine thing work for math problems? I know it works for computable functions, but math functions are pure and total so it seems easier.
Math functions are not total, in general. Computable functions are a subclass of all functions, so lots of functions are not computable.
Purity doesn't apply to functions, it applies to algorithms which compute functions. In software parlance the terms are often conflated but they are not equivalent. The algorithm which computes a function is in general not unique.
there were multiple Kremlin propaganda outlets you could read in the US 40 years ago, although it is true that (IIRC) there were restrictions on broadcast television
Obviously they could make a foray into enterprise hardware. They did it in the past. They have no interest. The addressable market is too small. As I already said, when Apple makes a product they want to the addressable market to be everyone.
What incentive would there be for a drug company to undertake a drug program that has a negative expected value? Ultimately, someone has to pay the cost, society just decides if and where.
I think more practically cars have adding driver assistance feature for a while now - more cameras, blind spot monitoring, ultrasound for parking, lane drift indicators.
It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that adding more sensors is helpful (but even the old adage of more data is better than less would probably say that).