> Most users will have other browsers installed along with Safari. And they will just switch browser if something doesn't work, they are used to it.
Unfortunately iOS users don't have this option.
2,166 karma · joined May 15, 2014
Email: theodorejb@gmail.com Website: https://theodorejb.me
Unfortunately iOS users don't have this option.
Note: whatever algorithm is implemented in the doesHalt function will contain a bug for at least some inputs, since it's trying to generalize something that is non-algorithmic.
In principle no algorithm can be created to determine if an arbitrary program will halt, since whatever it is could be implemented in a function which the program calls (with itself as the input) and then does the opposite thing.
There's an interesting article/podcast here about what computers can't do: https://mindmatters.ai/2020/08/six-limitations-of-artificial....
It doesn't matter what the algorithmic doesHalt function returns - it will always be incorrect for this program. What makes you certain there is an algorithmic analog for all human reasoning?
Many things are non-algorithmic, and thus cannot be done by a computer, yet we can do them (e.g. love someone, enjoy the beauty of a sunset, experience joy or sadness, etc).
That's a pretty simplistic view. How do you know we can't determine whether an arbitrary program will halt or not (assuming access to all inputs and enough time to examine it)? What in principle would prevent us from doing so? But computers in principle cannot, since the problem is often non-algorithmic.
For example, consider the following program, which is passed the text of the file it is in as input:
function doesHalt($program, $inputs): bool {...}
$input = $argv[0]; // contents of this file
if (doesHalt($input, [$input])) {
while(true) {
print "Wrong! It doesn't halt!";
}
} else {
print "Wrong! It halts!";
}
What do you mean? Is cognition a set of weights on a gradient? Cognition involves conscious reasoning and understanding. How do you know it is computable at all? There are many things which cannot be computed by a program (e.g. whether an arbitrary program will halt or not)...
It's a lot closer to the latter. GPT doesn't have "reasoning capabilities", any more than any other computer program. It doesn't have a clue what any of its input means, nor the meaning of the text it outputs. It just blindly spits out the words most probable to follow the prompt, based on its corpus of training data and the weights/biases added to fine tune it. It can often do a good job at mimicking reasoning, but it's not.
Yet because these tools output confident, plausible-sounding answers with a professional tone (which may even be correct a majority of the time), they give a strong illusion of being reliable.
What will be the result of the current push of GPT AI into the mainstream? If people start relying on it for things like summarizing articles and scientific papers, how many wrong conclusions will be reached as a result? God help us if doctors and engineers start making critical decisions based on generative AI answers.
Counterexample: PHP is a dynamic language which enforces static type declarations at runtime.
Why do you think a note taking service doesn't need end-to-end encryption? Perhaps you don't care if a rogue employee reads your personal diary, or if the company gets hacked and all your private notes are stolen. Or if an overreaching government demands your data.
Personally I do care. The note taking solution I currently use has E2E encryption, and I won't consider switching to a different solution that lacks this.
> On Supernotes your data is always encrypted in transit (forced SSL) and encrypted at rest (AES-256). Our team will never read or access your note content, unless we have received your express permission during a customer support interaction.
Sorry, but the fact that you can read it makes this a no-go for me. Unless a note-taking solution offers end-to-end encryption, I don't consider it a safe place for storing private information.
This verse is not specifying a maximum human lifespan, but the period of probation in which God's spirit would strive or plead with mankind before their judgment by the Flood. This is the period during which “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” (1 Peter 3:20).
Genesis records numerous descendents of Noah who lived longer than 120 years (see Gen. 11:10-25). Lifespans did decline rapidly after the Flood, however, and it was recorded in Psalms that “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” (Psalms 90:10).
Even today with our advanced medical knowledge and technology, life expectancy is still typically between 75-85 years.
The claim that unvaccinated people are a breeding ground for more effective versions of the virus sounds like a Big Pharma talking point, rather than something with solid science behind it. My understanding is that environmental pressure results in mutated variants becoming widespread. Couldn't vaccines themselves cause this? The virus hardly mutated for a whole year, but then once inoculations became available it seems that more infectious variants are popping up left and right.