this isn’t low effort. These are freaking great!

so no. Before llms came around, lots of people were hobby programmers. We learned. Sorry to be blunt, but being a hobbyist is not an excuse. The best programmers I know are hobbyists

to be fair this didn’t break thne system either. It refused to update until you followed all 1 instructions

by “completing it” do you mean having something that seems like it works? Or something that you know works? If it’s the former then you’ve just had the computer do the easy part (creating something) and skipped the actually hard part (making it robust).

Are errors handled properly, is all input being validated? If using https, are you actually verifying certificates? This sort of thing

always read the news before updates. There was one that said manual intervention was needed, and gave you the exact command you needed to run

and the only reason it’s not slowing you down on other things is that you don’t know enough about those other things to recognize all the stuff you need to fix

yes, but that doesn’t help if the software refuses to run on modern java

funny how everyone who wants to write a new browser (except the ladybird guys) always skimp on writing the actual browser part

in yes/no type questions, 50% success rate is the absolute worst one can do. Any worse and you’re just giving an inverted correct answer more than half the time

they are improving at an exponential rate. It’s just that the exponent is less than one.

so? It was never advertised as intelligent and capable of solving any task other than that one.

Meanwhile slop generators are capable of doing a lot of things and reasoning.

One claims to be good at chess. The other claims to be good at everything.

the word insisting shows your arrogance. Insisting on something implies one has a choice. Those who are sticking with X11 are doing so because wayland just does not do what they need.

25% of users sticking with X11 is a very significant amount. which roughly means wayland does not account for the needs of a quarter of its (hostilely taken over, now) userbase

i bought an original cartridge and played it on the vcs i iherited from dad

i still enjoyed the crap out of it. Sometimes zoning out and just running around collecting stuff is just what I need.

he was forced to release it quickly to coincide with the film’s release. For comparison, it used to take a team of devs a couple of months to make a game. He had 6 weeks.

Also, if you read the manual, this essentially never happened to you. It was easy to avoid.

You also needed to read the manual. The game did stuff that other games at the time didn’t, for example, a contextual button. You couldn’t know what would happen unless you read the manual to learn what the icons meant. A lot of people never did and so decided that the game was bad.

when climbing out of the pit, it was very easy to immediately fall back down (due to the pixel-perfect collision detection).

And here is an excerpt from the manual: “Even experienced extraterrestrials sometimes have difficulty levitating out of wells. Start to levitate E.T. by first pressing the controller button and then pushing your Joystick forward. E.T.'s neck will stretch as he rises to the top of the well (see E.T. levitating in Figure 1). Just when he reaches the top of the well and the scene changes to the planet surface (see Figure 2), STOP! Do not try to keep moving up. Instead, move your Joystick right, left, or to the bottom. Do not try to move up, or E.T. might fall back into the well.”

it was actually way ahead of its time, for a game. One small bug (the workaround for which was in the manual) ruined its reputation. But I genuinely think it was a good game.

Also written in 6 weeks by one guy. Freaking impressive

because the over 70 different binaries of systemd are “not modular” because they are designed to work together. What makes a monolith is, apparently, the name of the overarching project, not it being a single binary (which again, it’s not)

you wouldn’t be “freezing” anything. Each possible combination of input tokens maps to one output probability distribution. Those values are fixed and they are what they are whether you compute them or not, or when, or how many times.

Now you can either precompute the whole table (theory), or somehow compute each cell value every time you need it (practice). In either case, the resulting function (table lookup vs matrix multiplications) takes in only the context, and produces a probability distribution. And the mapping they generate is the same for all possible inputs. So they are the same function. A function can be implemented in multiple ways, but the implementation is not the function itself. The only difference between the two in this case is the implementation, or more specifically, whether you precompute a table or not. But the function itself is the same.

You are somehow saying that your choice of implementation for that function will somehow change the function. Which means that according to you, if you do precompute (or possibly cache, full precomputation is just an infinite cache size) individual mappings it somehow magically makes some magic happen that gains some deep insight. It does not. We have already established that it is the same function.