I grew up here, so it's "home" so to speak. Well, technically my childhood home was a few hundred miles further south than where I am now (Fairbanks, Alaska). It's definitely an extreme climate to live in, but there are a ton of things to do outdoors, and although the daylight changes are very extreme, the excessive summer daylight makes that part of the year truly amazing.
I do think the extreme polar opposites in daylight and temperature for summer and winter solstices contribute to people here being a little...unbalanced. But for a lot of people, the unique landscape, low population, and abundance of outdoor activities make it worthwhile.
Best solution for sleep I think is a combination of earplugs and Shokz openrun bone conduction headphones. Bone conduction headphones work better when you have earplugs in than they do without them so it works amazing.
My favorite earplugs are Loop Quiet because foam earplugs make my ears sweaty and itchy. If foam earplugs work for you they can’t be beaten as far as noise reduction.
I sleep on my side so I wear the headphones backwards and position the bottom one so it’s not between my head and pillow.
I turn on the iOS background sounds dark noise and put on an audiobook to distract from my mind not turning off. Add in an eye mask and I sleep quite well.
The key here is "under your guidance". LLM's are a major productivity boost for many kinds of jobs, but can LLM-based agents be trusted to act fully autonomously for tasks with real world consequence? I think the answer is still no, and will be for a long time. I wouldn't trust LLM to even order my groceries without review, let alone push code into production.
To reach anything close to definition of AGI, LLM agents should be able to independently talk to customers, iteratively develop requirements, produce and test solutions, and push them to production once customers are happy. After that, they should be able to fix any issues arising in production. All this without babysitting / review / guidance from human devs, reliably
No, zero based indexing just is based on how arrays actually work. It has nothing to do with resources being scarce. You have an address for the beginning of the array and an offset. The first element has no offset so you use zero. Therefore you naturally end up with zero indexing.
It does make some sense: if I have some apples, and I ask a child to count them, they'll address each one starting with the number 1, not the number 0.
Yes, indeed. But when indexing to an element in an array you aren't measuring from a zero (well, in memory you are, but not conceptually). You're conceptually pointing at an apple.
I think maybe it's just hard to unlearn the offset mentality. Of course you can convert a direct index mentality to an offset mentality, but I don't think anyone is pointing at the first item in a row of items and thinking "that's a zero offset from the start of the number of items". They're thinking, "That's item number 1".
Yeah that's because the distinction between indexing and counting is pretty much irrelevant to every day use, and to maths where you can just hand-wave syntax. So people are very used to doing it "wrong".
That's what most of the issue with this debate is. Indexing from 1 is wrong, but people are soooo used to it they just can't get over what they think is the "normal" way.
reply