Yup, they shipped a debug build. Here’s a video that shows the build side-by-side with one that was compiled with compiler optimizations: https://youtu.be/9_gdOKSTaxM
It was quite laggy in certain areas, particularly the submarine sank the framerate quite considerably.
Meh, those are just the programmers that are remembered.
They did lots of dumb shit too. Mario 64 was a super-innovative game at the time with its free 3D platforming. There’s also tons of weird code in there, and the developers also fucked up by shipping a debug build of the game, costing a not insignificant amount of performance.
Whether a specific colour was green or yellow. We eventually looked up the RGB value to settle it, and as it turns out it is the exact shade that’s halfway to yellow and halfway to green.
We were both equally correct in the end.
Bookmarks I use for pages I want to store for a longer time. Tab groups I can use for pages I have open at the moment, e.g. because I’m working on X and Y, so I group the tabs based on X or Y. But I don’t need to keep the tabs between sessions.
From the FAQ, they want to eventually move to https://code.europa.eu/
Then you also mandate tri-monthly doctor’s appointments or something similar to check. Sounds horrible.
It’s so weird, I was actually kinda hyped seeing they improved almost everything on the original Switch. Hardware-wise it seems good. But the software after really just became this turn-off? The Mario Kart gimmick of riding between tracks looks dull, the 24 players is cool but offset with the wider tracks it seems less impactful, and then all the prices…
I’m holding off I think. Maybe when there’s better games out it becomes a better deal. Or when Nintendo does an OLED refresh (if we don’t have a Steam Deck 2 by then that is).
It’s not a fact.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0639
Dog breeds are an incredibly poor predictor of behaviour. Behaviour is heritable to some degree, but the breed itself doesn’t really determine it.
No candidate for the Cuban national assembly has ever lost an election though?
Cuba selects a candidate for each seat, and voters can either approve or disapprove them (requiring a new candidate to be chosen). But this has never happened in Cuban history.
I was friends with her and I trusted that she would handle it well if she wasn’t interested. And turns out she indeed wasn’t interested, but we did talk about it and decided to just stay friends. It was a little awkward as my feelings for her still lingered a bit, but eventually that passed and I’m now with a wonderful girl who I think is a much better match for me.
We’re still friends to this day.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the study.
That’s as shortsighted as the “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers” quote, or the worry that NYC would be buried under mountains of horse poop before cars were invented.
That’s not their argument. They’re saying that they can prove that machine learning cannot lead to AGI in the foreseeable future.
Maybe transformers aren’t the path to AGI, but there’s no reason to think we can’t achieve it in general unless you’re religious.
They’re not talking about achieving it in general, they only claim that no known techniques can bring it about in the near future, as the AI-hype people claim. Again, they prove this.
That’s a silly argument. It sets up a strawman and knocks it down. Just because you create a model and prove something in it, doesn’t mean it has any relationship to the real world.
That’s not what they did. They provided an extremely optimistic scenario in which someone creates an AGI through known methods (e.g. they have a computer with limitless memory, they have infinite and perfect training data, they can sample without any bias, current techniques can eventually create AGI, an AGI would only have to be slightly better than random chance but not perfect, etc…), and then present a computational proof that shows that this is in contradiction with other logical proofs.
Basically, if you can train an AGI through currently known methods, then you have an algorithm that can solve the Perfect-vs-Chance problem in polynomial time. There’s a technical explanation in the paper that I’m not going to try and rehash since it’s been too long since I worked on computational proofs, but it seems to check out. But this is a contradiction, as we have proof, hard mathematical proof, that such an algorithm cannot exist and must be non-polynomial or NP-Hard. Therefore, AI-learning for an AGI must also be NP-Hard. And because every known AI learning method is tractable, it cannor possibly lead to AGI. It’s not a strawman, it’s a hard proof of why it’s impossible, like proving that pi has infinite decimals or something.
Ergo, anyone who claims that AGI is around the corner either means “a good AI that can demonstrate some but not all human behaviour” or is bullshitting. We literally could burn up the entire planet for fuel to train an AI and we’d still not end up with an AGI. We need some other breakthrough, e.g. significant advancements in quantum computing perhaps, to even hope at beginning work on an AGI. And again, the authors don’t offer a thought experiment, they provide a computational proof for this.
Glad to see things will improve in the US!
Turing the wheel of the car like crazy when they on a straight road.
Just drive like Nicholas Cage drives.
I’m not sure if Milei has been in power for long enough to have any sort of meaningful impact.
I don’t expect him to have a positive impact, mind. But it always takes a bit of time before things change.
They put money in Bitcoin, but not the tech behind it. To them it’s just stocks to be manipulated in order to get a profit.
Of course not, but it works 9/10 times for most people. Enough so that most people never have to deal with a faulty Windows update.
I think it recovered my PC for me twice, and it took about ~10 minutes each time at most. Good luck reinstalling everything in that time lol.
… No you just use Windows built-in rollback feature. Which I think even auto-recovers these days of it detects a failure to boot after an update.
This is a very typically American point of view, which tends to lump a lot of people together as “liberal” despite this internationally not being the norm at all.
Here’s a definition of liberalism:
Note specifically how it says individual rights. The idea with liberalism is that if everyone is similarly unrestrained by the government, and has the same civil liberties, there is an even playing field in which individuals can personally grow and excel. This neatly links together with the liberal belief in a free market, free trade, etc…
A strict liberal idealogy will also adopt several progressive policies w.r.t. civil liberties, like gay rights (as this causes social equality -> level playing field for competition). But liberalism is still a strictly capitalist idealogy, with a strong emphasis on the free market and free trade.
Generally, this individualistic approach to rights is considered socially progressive and economically right-wing. And we see that this is the case in most countries around the world, e.g. Australia’s liberal party or the Dutch VVD. The Dutch VVD is a good example to look at here, they are considered very firmly right-wing, but their party platform most closely matches to that of the DNC. In the US, the two major parties are both righg-wing, one is a moderately progressive right-wing party (with some left-wingers in there, but they aren’t very influential w.r.t. party policy because it’s such a small minority) and the other is a conservative/authoritarian right-wing party.
Because both parties sit firmly on the right of the spectrum, they’ve come to distinguish themselves on social policy rather than economic policy. They’ve remapped the progressive-conservative axis on the left-right axis and called it a day. But in most countries, these axes are very much distinct. Here’s the “political compass” for the Netherlands for example:
Note how there are only two fairly fringe parties to the right of the VVD. Also it’s interesting to note here that the PVV (the “far-right” party with the bird symbol near the bottom) isn’t even all that far right. Their economic policies aren’t actually all that focused on free market dynamics, and they do promote certain social policies. But their hardline immigration stance pushes them very firmly in the conservative camp. And although there’s certainly a correlation between left-progressive and right-conservative, there are still major differences between the parties along this diagonal axis.
Generally, actual left-wing people (be they progressive or conservative) don’t like being lumped in with liberals, because they don’t focus on as much on individual freedom but rather on collective freedom and on policies that benefit the collective. Hence their insistence on actually looking at the full political spectrum rather than the simplified/reducted version of it.
You’re not wrong that people in the US tend to call liberals “left-wing”, but it’s a very reductive, American perspective not shared by political scientists or the rest of the world.