6,094 karma · joined November 5, 2013
That's because your imagination is bounded by being a monkey that has spent its entire life in a finite environment — no offense. The universe, however, isn't bounded the limits of our imagination or intuition.
Why not? An infinitely large universe goes against our intuitions, but our intuitions were formed by the experience of living on a finite planet and have no bearing on what's true on a galactic scale – just like they have no bearing on what's true at the quantum scale. There is no objective reason to assume that the universe isn't infinite.
I suspect that's because they're working on projects that are several orders of magnitude more complex and demanding than a "todo app".
Why take on a job when you have to pay income tax? Because you'll still have much more left over than if you didn't. And this answers your question: because you'll still have much more left over than if you didn't start a business.
They are not. Quote: "The safest code is that which never runs. The most elegant feature is that which is not necessary."
> you're bringing it back to capital.
I am not. I'm talking about satisfying customer requirements, not about capital.
I think you've replied to the wrong comment. Either that, or your reading comprehension needs some work.
1 m/s is just 3.6 km/h, or slow walking speed. You'll be fine.
No, you can typically only assume 48 bits of virtual address space; the kernel takes half of it, so really only 47 bits. Newer CPUs provide 57 bits (e.g., Zen 4) or 52 bits (certain ARM64 models). And that's provided that the kernel plays ball; apparently some Android configurations only support 39 bits of user virtual address space.
Yes, but the most useless software is that which doesn't exist.
At some point, you actually do have to write some code and add some features, or else the most satisfied client is the one who hired your competitor.
You can buy battery-powered drills for 25 € or less on Amazon, they'll last for years of occasional use, and they're more than adequate for assembling furniture and other light tasks. If you can afford new furniture, there's really no excuse for not owning at least a cheap power drill.
Your error lies in thinking Opus 5.5 is equivalent to a "minion". The "5 software developers" in my example were meant to stand in for "reasonably competent, above-average developers", and not that the architect is the only one on the team who can "think".
Of course, it may well be the case that you are working in an elite sector of the industry where even the bottom rungs are filled by the top 20% of software developers. Possible, but unlikely, so I'm still leaning towards "you're holding it wrong".
Edit: There is a loophole, though. Article 146 allows the German people to replace the constitution in its entirety.
LLMs, even in a good harness, are deceptively simple, but in reality rather complex tools. They're good at grasping intent, but they can't read your mind, they might not have access to the full context of your business, and they require learning how to use them properly.
If that is true, then only because "most people" have no understanding of what differentiates programming and math from "computation". Computers (as the term suggests) have always been extremely good at the latter, and useless at the former. It's only 2–3 years ago that computers, by way of LLMs, have started being good at the former.
1. Modeling and analyzing spinning, three-dimensional objects goes far beyond "basic maths".
2. The prompt was for an SVG of a realistically impossible situation (pelican riding a bicycle), which together already implies a stylized depiction. Why on Earth would you expect it to generate a 3D model of a bike, do a physics simulation on it, iterate until it satisfies certain contraints which are only hinted at in the prompt, and then project it down to a simplified 2D cartoon drawing? That's not how LLMs work, and that's not how we want them to work.
So did the Democrats. They clung to the worst possible choice, and in the last minute replaced him with the second-worst possible choice. Absolving them of fault and putting 100% of the blame on Trump voters is the fantasy of the Left.