informatimago

Apart from the tourist aspect of it, the point of a digital nomad is to save money on rent, food and taxes, not to spend all your money in a foreign country.

Of course, a business hub, or a technological hub can attract digital nomads punctually, even if accommodations are more expensive.

Now Japan has a problem with its age pyramid and desertification of its country side. So it should be possible to attract digital nomad for longer and cheaper stays, even if they don't have a lot of money (to spend in Japan), at least that's good for the young body count, and perhaps they'd eventually fixate and have families. But again, this wouldn't be a six-month thing, they would have to add more incentive (free or $1-house in the countryside with minimal occupancy, good internet connection (I don't know if Japan has 100% territory fiber coverage) (that said nowadays there's Starlink), etc.

- In archeology: unknown -> religious.

- In egyptology: unknown -> tomb.

- In astrophysics: unknown -> dark.

- In mathematics: unknown -> x.

- In computing: unknown -> NULL.

;-)

All European people have a unique male ancestor 300 generations away. If you locate remains of that age, do you have to ask nobody or everybody? (Depending on whether it's the male ancestor of all of us, or some other male whose last descendent died long ago?)

I could understand that a people decides that it should be governed with pure human processes, and therefore that its government and civil servant has to use only human brain power (and compassion) to govern and administrate.

I would be afraid to miss some good or even just rational decision making, but I think we can all agree that a 100% AI government or administration would be a bad idea, so how to ensure that there's always a reasonable and informed human to decide, even with the help of AI and computer models?

The wiseness of this decision should probably spread largely, for example, when considering the decision making that has been done and keep being done around things like climate change MODELS, and COVID spreading MODELS.

That said, if there are thus more than one phase in this container, what happens is dictated by Archimedes. When one phase is less dense than the other, then it will be sujected to a force equivalent to the "weight" or acceleration of its volume filled by the more dense phase. That, plus the surface tension of the interphase surface will dictate how bubbly the phases will change position during your shaking acceleration. This can lead to the creation of lots of small bubbles, up to mixing an "emulsion" with the right surface tension.

Competitive programming is a type of programming competition where participants compete against each other to solve algorithmic and computational problems in a limited amount of time (usually a few hours). The competition typically involves a set of problems of varying difficulty levels that participants must solve within a fixed time frame. The objective is to solve as many problems as possible and score the maximum number of points.

Competitive programming is often used as a way to test and hone programming and problem-solving skills, and it is popular among students and professionals in the computer science and software engineering fields. It can also be a fun and challenging way to learn new programming concepts and techniques.

While it may look at first a good idea for an enterprise to have such programmers that are able to program fast, I'd be wary about the code quality, maintainability, or even merely its adequacy to user specifications. And yes, about run-time too.

One can argue that if a competitive programmer finds a solution quickly, he has time left on his hands to fulfill those additional goals. It's indeed the argument used eg. by Lisp programmers, where the speed of reaching a solution is helped by the quality and high-levelness of the programming language, rather than brute competitiveness of the programmer. Then time is left to optimize the program if there are parts, or algorithms that are too slow for the user. But remember than the best gain of run-time performance are obtained by choosing the right data-structure and algorithms, rather than micro-optimizing and hacking.

There are multiple dimensions and notions behind the word "performance". Recently, energy efficiency has become an important performance parameter (you may choose an algorithm because executing it consumes less energy). Of course, companies may need programmers competent in various performance optimizations. Among other competencies...

http://cliki.net/Performance

You may also re-license under AGPL all your old software that you distributed so far under another license, as long as you still have the copyright on it. You won't be able to prevent others to use the old license, but you are in no obligation to continue distributing your old software under those old licenses. Of course, people who want up to date up-streams will have to agree to the new licensing terms. They may still fork the old software and keep it under the old license, but if they try to merge an AGPL patch, it'll become AGPL automatically by the GPL contamination. So they're quite incentivised to switch to the new upstream with the new AGPL license.

Ah, if OpenAI had been under AGPL license...

While ChatGPT alone couldn't re-invent the Velcro or something similar, you could still use to brainstorm and come with some innovative solution to your problem. See for example, how such a conversation might go:

https://chat.openai.com/share/e7799549-b8bd-4e5e-960b-1f0f8c...

But ChatGPT doesn't know it: "... the codes were "1234ABCD." It was shocking to learn that something so critical had such a simple code."

It would have been most interesting to add a group half boys half girls. I hear mixed groups display better natural behavior.

Pirates and all boys. Girls alone lead to Pussy Riot. Only a mixed group can evolve to civilisation! ;-)

Pfft!

This is not to say that we don't have a say in our ultimate wants, assuming we can't change them. Perhaps we (our soul) still decided on them originally.

So all things being equal, it's best to replace old hardware with new hardware, since that reduces energy consumption.

Or it's best to replace old hardware with new hardware, since that will give you more computing for the same energy.

The ecological thing to do is therefore to get new computing hardware!!!

Until, of course, no progress can be made on computing hardware efficiency or energy use, but we are certainly far from the limit.

On a more theorical point of view, the best computing device is no computing device. Ie. the biological solution. Instead of _building_ computers, let's _grow_ computers, or already, just better use the computer we have in our brains! Biological computers are already way more efficient than artificial computers, and they're bio-degradable. Of course, the problem is that you need 20 or 50 years to build and program them, you'll have to give something for this degrowth fad.

Eventually, we'll just build everything in space, and drop the required product down to Earth (but probably not, Earth will be a degrowthed natural reserve, and the technological civilization will live and prosper in space).