cerved

I'd guess legal reasons

Peter Stuckey, the co-author of this paper has a series of courses on modelling for constraint programming on coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/basic-modeling Pascal Van Hentenryck has another one https://www.coursera.org/learn/discrete-optimization Håkan K has a blog with a big collection of models for a wide variety of solvers https://www.hakank.org/

Starting

> Though, what I'm really concerned about is what happens when it gets smart enough to do pretty much everything better (or even close)

I'll get concerned when it stops sucking so hard. It's like talking to a dumb robot. Which it unsurprisingly is.

I know! It does AI!!

People are always shitting on bash but I like it.

I hate Jet with a vengeance

Where did this unknown individual buy the keys and when? I see a lot of smoke but where is the fire?

I'd suggest getting a better window manager

55" was fine but I'm happy I downsized to 48"

Same. I used to have a 56" OLED but it was a tad large. 48 is perfect. The hardest part was buying a good desk mount.

It doesn't work great with an all white screen but I use dark mode for most things

isn't backtracking a complete search strategy?

Who on earth doesn't want faster builds?

It's make interpolation if it's using Make syntax and shell if it's not. It's not the same syntax

Is the US government not already negotiating the prices for cars and food it buys?

What bash but not really bash quirks are you referring to?

Only quirk I can think of is that each line in a recipe is a separate shell and it makes inline comments wonky

The beauty of Make is the automatic parallelization and incremental building

same problem in Java

what's preventing you from doing it in one pass?

It's an analogy. He's making the point that even though something can scale at an exponential rate, it doesn't mean there is a business need for such scaling

but the OP was talking about the size of the context window, not the size of the training corpus

Why should the response be better just because there is "more data"?

Should I be adding extra random tokens to my prompts to make the LLM "smarter"?

I'm not sure I would draw the same conclusion, stricter requirements on typing is less cumbersome these days with better auto complete and LLMs

depends what you consider interesting and/or acceptable solution I suppose

they do have a Gurobi license

How do you come to this conclusion? They way I read it rather sounds like they use the CP-SAT solver with LNS and LS workers, parallelized over multiple machines

Not at all. Plenty of people are researching finding satisfiable solution that are quasi-optimal at scale. Once you reach a certain scale of optimization problem, proven optimality in a reasonable time-frame is often infeasible

tbf, it's a constraint optimization problem

MiniZinc is a high-level CP language and tool chain, not a solver. Google has been developing their suite of OR tools for 15+ years, it's not like they built something from scratch just for this

please do, it was very annoying

Depends how good you want the application to be

seems like Vim does too