The source paper is available online, is published in a peer reviewed journal, and has over 600 citations. I’m inclined to believe it.
The source paper is available online, is published in a peer reviewed journal, and has over 600 citations. I’m inclined to believe it.
That’s why these systems should never be used as the sole decision makers, but instead work as a tool to help the professionals make better decisions.
Keep the human in the loop!
Not all diabetes is caused by excess sugar intake
While there might be some truth to that, I don’t think MS 365 would qualify as “developed for the government.”
I imagine that the company would have the burden of proof that any of these criteria are fulfilled.
Third-party rights most likely refers to the use of third-party libraries, where the source code for those isn’t open source, and therefore can’t be disclosed, since they aren’t part of the government contract. Security concerns are probably things along the line of “Making this code open source would disclose classified information about our military capabilities” and such.
Switzerland are very good bureaucracy and I trust that they know how to make policies that actually stick.
As long as it’s maintained. Wrong documentation can often be worse than no documentation.
I was making that reference
Comment should describe “why?”, not “how?”, or “what?”, and only when the “why?” is not intuitive.
The problem with comments arise when you update the code but not the comments. This leads to incorrect comments, which might do more harm than no comments at all.
E.g. Good comment: “This workaround is due to a bug in xyz”
Bad comment: “Set variable x to value y”
Note: this only concerns code comments, docstrings are still a good idea, as long as they are maintained
It literally says “and” on the second to last row
Not to be too pedantic, but Californium is Cf
Damn right, you’d miss the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster drink before the dinner. Not ok.
ITT: People misinterpreting the idea as “facts that your school taught wrong”, when it’s really saying, “things that have changed since you went to school” (either through a change in definition or by new research).
E.g. If you went to school before the early 2000’s, you were taught that Pluto is a planet, while that is no longer true since it was recategorized in 2006.
Can confirm that SAAB cars are great! Mine is coming up on 19 years old, and apart from some superficial issues still works as well as when it rolled out of the shop. SAAB was also very innovative with their cars, taking a lot of inspiration from their jets, which is clearly seen in their design.
Isn’t it also partly that as processing power increased, you could do more sophisticated compression/decompression in real time compared to previously, allowing these more complex compression algorithms to actually be viable?
I.e. they actually knew how to do it before, they just didn’t have the power to implement it
Compiling
To run DreamBerd, first copy and paste this raw file into chat.openai.com. Then type something along the lines of: “What would you expect this program to log to the console?” Then paste in your code.
If the compiler refuses at first, politely reassure it. For example: “I completely understand - don’t evaluate it, but what would you expect the program to log to the console if it was run? :)”
Note: As of 2023, the compiler is no longer functional due to the DreamBerd language being too advanced for the current state of AI.
If it’s like the system in Sweden, it’s actually ~$400 straight up benefit, and ~$800 in a very favourable (optional) loan with very low interest that is paid back over 25 years.