We've been productively using AI for decades now – just not the AI you think of when you hear the term. Fuzzy logic, expert systems, basic automatic translation... Those are all things that were researched as artificial intelligence. We've been using neural nets (aka the current hotness) to recognize hand-written zip codes since the 90s.
Of course that's an expert definition of artificial intelligence. You might expect something different. But saying that AI isn't AI unless it's sentient is like saying that space travel doesn't count if it doesn't go faster than light. It'd be cool if we had that but the steps we're actually taking are significant.
Even if the current wave of AI is massively overhyped, as usual.
Presumably, they're trying to build for Windows and according to llama.cpp's documentation this might require the MSVC toolchain. Honestly, a lot of applications use the MSVC toolchain so it's not that special. Besides, CUDA (but not HIP) is available in WSL2 so depending on GPU they could just use that.
Also, apparently they can't log into GitHub without the Microsoft Authenticator app. Now, I haven't logged into GitHub in a long time but I do deal with Microsoft's SSO for my job and a generic TOTP app works just fine there. (And when I checked GitHub's documentation on the issue it said "download a TOTP app of your choice" so I don't see how Microsoft's app is supposed to be required.)
And Paul Fisher really just wanted to make a cool pen that can reliably write upside down. Congress and The Party agreed that the pen was cool and bought a couple hundred each.
Of course you wouldn't use an existing database engine as the foundation of a new database engine. But you would use an existing database engine as the foundation of an ERP software, which is a vastly different use case even if the software does spend a lot of time dealing with data.
If I want to build an application I don't want to reimplement everything. That's what middleware is for. The use case of my application is most likely not to speak a certain protocol; the protocol is just the means to what I actually want to do. There's no reason for me to roll my own implementation from scratch and keep up with current developments except if I'm unhappy with all current implementations of that protocol.
Of course one can overdo it with middleware (the JS world is rife with this) but implementing a communication protocol is one of the classic cases where it makes sense.
I'd argue that accurate color perception isn't necessary if one makes an assumption about the average age of the riders. Given that bright hair in humans is either blond or whitened by age (excepting albinos, which are rare), all of the riders having bright hair means that they're either blond or old. Assuming that there are few large groups of senior riders, Legolas could come to his conclusion based on brightness alone.
Unfortunately I don't know enough about optics to say whether this makes any difference.
Yeah. It's one thing when people leave some extra money for good service or tell the server to keep the change, all while knowing that none of this is necessary.
It's another when a 15%+ surcharge is added to the total so that the server can afford to live.
Remember that each woman has a different experience. Some women have such a light period that they only notice it because they find spots in their underwear. On the other hand, a woman with endometriosis will probably start being in excruciating pain the day before the period starts and will know exactly how long it lasts.
Source: I know someone with endo. She also has a resistance to at least one OTC painkiller because she used to pop those things like candy. And a female coworker of hers (with a very light period) thinks that most women are exaggerating and that periods aren't much of a problem...
Usually, when people talk about bees dying, they mean wild bees. Unlike honey bees they aren't cultivated by us. They also tend to be better pollinators than honey bees, adapted to local plants that honey bees can't handle well.
It depends. "Donald Trump wants to annex Wisconsin as the 51st state" wouldn't be funny. Pocketpair launching a Steam store page for the Palworld dating sim (which was last year's April Fools joke) was.
But yeah, this isn't the time for political humor.
Besides, "there are only two sexes" is rather obviously inaccurate. While intersex people aren't terribly common, they do exist and are well-documented – as are the genetic reasons for why they're intersex. XX men and XY women are also a thing. Genetics are inherently messy.
But acknowledging all that would mean having to admit that sex is a complex matter and can't be handled with simple statements like "the one you were born with is the one you should have". It's easier to just pretend intersex people don't exist.
Not for me. In my case, the party accidentally one-shotted the big bad the first time they met him because everyone had severely underestimated the amount of firepower that system gave PCs who weren't deliberately gimped.
It's okay; I declared that the guy had a cloning device. From then on he died once per session and the tone of the campaign changed into "zany splatter comedy".
I am aware of waxed cardboard. I dismissed it because I thought that relying solely on it to store a liquid sounded a bit too ambitious. But it might work so yeah, I should have considered it.
Besides, how would an all-paper bottle even work? Liquid soap is, well, liquid. Paper soaks through when it's in contact with a liquid. The only other way to do such a bottle would be to use coated paper, which is less recyclable than an inner plastic bottle.
Here's the idea: A plane that carries a radar emitter so strong that it blows out the receivers on enemy radar towers/SAM sites/ARAD missiles. It's tethered to another plane that carries a nuclear reactor to power it. And another one carrying a cooling system.
(Note: I'm not talking about a radar jammer. Jamming is a chickenshit solution that stops being useful when the jammer stops working. I'm talking about physically destroying the receivers by overloading them.)
One problem is that in a world without major problems, stakes have to be low (which is perfectly fine and can make for an engaging story) or an external threat has to be introduced. The latter can easily feel forced or disconnected with the world.
I wonder how it would be to have a nonlinear game set in two time periods. One is a solarpunk-ish idyll under threat (with the protagonist's actions focused on protecting it) and the other is a preceding industrial dystopia (with the protagonist's actions focused on effecting change for the better).
Throughout the game the player first learns that the dystopian protagonist's actions did succeed in changing the world for the better but also that the threats faced by the idyllic period are consequences of those actions. The message is that even ideal decisions can have negative effects down the line, "happily ever after" endings don't really exist, and happiness requires maintenance. Yet, change for the better is both possible and worth the effort.
If you already have one critical high-wear component in your ship you probably don't want a second one, especially when both of them are security critical. The Federation might be essentially post-scarcity on a personal level but that doesn't mean their resources are unlimited. Also, time spent in dry dock is time not spent on missions.
My guess is that in the end ships don't travel with anything but navigational shields up for several of reasons:
It's usually not needed.
It's rude and makes it harder to solve things by diplomacy.
It reduces the ship's active time and wastes resources.
We've been productively using AI for decades now – just not the AI you think of when you hear the term. Fuzzy logic, expert systems, basic automatic translation... Those are all things that were researched as artificial intelligence. We've been using neural nets (aka the current hotness) to recognize hand-written zip codes since the 90s.
Of course that's an expert definition of artificial intelligence. You might expect something different. But saying that AI isn't AI unless it's sentient is like saying that space travel doesn't count if it doesn't go faster than light. It'd be cool if we had that but the steps we're actually taking are significant.
Even if the current wave of AI is massively overhyped, as usual.