> We want to help people in the EU, but with laws like replaceable batteries, it's going to push us further and further away from being able to do that.
We want to help people, but only if and when it’s profitable for us to do so on terms we decide for you.
Yes its perfectly fine, thats my point. They arent spiting the EU, they are just responding to the legislation by not entering that market. If EU voters are unhappy they can take it up with their government.
That's not what a lot of proponents of these laws argue. They often state that if a company is making something unavailable in the EU due to one of the laws that the company is throwing a fit or being spiteful.
And it's also probably true, especially for $MEGACORP. But in general the concept of this kind of laws, as others mentioned, it's to make companies internalize the whole cost of their product impact on the environment. It is GOOD if it drives the price up. At some point people will find it too expensive and they will simply not buy it because it's not worth the cost.
Yes, a free market isn't the answer to everything. It will never optimise for sustainability unless this is a conscious consumer choice factor. It's way too important to leave it to that though. Hence regulation.
Just change the underlying economic incentives - but nobody is even barely there yet, except maybe the EU. Doughnut Economics, when are you going to save us (& the planet)?
Incredibly corrupt sports organisation awards incredibly corrupt politician the peace prize. Something neither party have any concept of, nor seem to understand the definition of.
I feel for the South Park creators because boy do you have a challenge coming up with absurdity this season.
> I feel for the South Park creators because boy do you have a challenge coming up with absurdity this season.
Have you been following seasons 27 and 28? They’ll be OK. If anything, it’s been feeling like the episodes are writing themselves. They’ve been absurdly topical.
Last Week Tonight has already ended for the year and won’t be coming back for the next few months. Plus, Netflix just bought HBO, so who knows how they’ll structure that.
This news won’t get more than a passing mention, if it gets mentioned at all. It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, it’s not even near the top of evil things done by FIFA (which were already covered in another episode).
Is that interesting? Computers accomplish all sorts of tasks which require thinking from humans.. without thinking. Chess engines have been much better than me at chess for a long time, but I can't say there's much thinking involved.
Well most of the programming is pattern matching. And might be seen as novel for those who have not done it before, but could well been done a lot previously.
It requires as much thinking as it did for me to copy-paste code I did not understand from Stackoverflow to make a program 15 years ago. The program worked, just about. Similarly you can generate endless love sonnets with just blindly putting words into a form.
For some reason we naturally anthropomorphise machines without thinking it for a second. But your toaster is still not in love with you.
Producing a computer program does not require thinking, like many other human endeavors. And looking at the quality of software out there there are indeed quite a few human programmers who do not think about what they do.
That is indeed the case. It becomes very obvious with lesser-known vendor-specific scripting languages that don't have much training data available. LLMs try to map them onto the training data they do have and start hallucinating functions and other language constructs that exist in other languages.
When I tried to use LLMs to create Zabbix templates to monitor network devices, LLMs were utterly useless and made things up all the time. The illusion of thinking lasts only as long as you stay on the happy path of major languages like C, JS or Python.
Yep, seen that myself. If you want to generate some code in a language that is highly represented in the training data (e.g. JS), they do very well. If you want to generate something that isn't one of those scenarios, they fail over and over and over. This is why I think anyone who is paying a modicum of attention should know they aren't thinking. A human, when confronted with a programming language not in his "training data" (experiences) will go out and read docs, look up code examples, ask questions of other practitioners, and reason how to use the language based on that. An LLM doesn't do that, because it's not thinking. It's glorified autocomplete. That isn't to say that autocomplete is useless (even garden variety autocomplete can be useful), but it's good to recognize it for what it is.
The title is interesting but the article lacks a lot of background information. There’s no explanation of what the CPU-bound endpoints are, what causes them to be CPU-bound etc. They mention they didn’t think optimising the Go code would’ve given them enough, but there’s nothing to substantiate it and no way for the reader to form their own opinion since we’re never told what the problem is other than “doesn’t scale.”
I have no issue with Rust, there’s nothing wrong with what they did, they approached it sensibly and the results are certainly compelling. But it reads a lot like “we wanted to write something in Rust” and found a reason to do so.
We want to help people, but only if and when it’s profitable for us to do so on terms we decide for you.
reply