Sure, but there are far more things which will kill the entire person at the same dose they'll kill the cancer than things which can be carefully controlled by choosing the right dose.
These studies which claim to kill cancer in a petri dish usually turn out to be the former, because not killing the host is the difficult part
An experimental capability being kicked out of the kernel, so that it has to settle for being a kernel module or custom forks of the kernel, is absolutely a minor matter
This is a non-issue, being over-reported by people looking for clicks. A minor technical matter being handled by the person ultimately responsible for handling such things
Israel and trump appear to be claiming to have defeated the Iranian air defense, and achieve air supremacy over the Iranian capital.
If that's true then Iran is in deep trouble, and inviting them to surrender wouldn't be unreasonable. I very much doubt that it is true, but that's what they seem to believe
It's far harder to achieve mass manipulation of the ballot when it's all being handled by a lot of human hands. If it's managed by computers, then by finding a bug or other vulnerability in the software or database you could alter the whole election.
Meanwhile, to manipulate a paper ballot & hand-counted election in the same way you'd need the cooperation of a huge number of people, and you'd need them all to keep their mouths shut. That's far more difficult than defeating a computerised system
You're overlooking the fact that this development is a side project for them. While they're designing this rocket, their other rocket is in operational use and has the best success rate of any rocket of its scale in history, and they'd already be considered hugely successful if they never did anything innovative ever again.
They're also trying to do something far more difficult than the Saturn 5, in at least two ways. Nobody has ever tried to land a rocket anywhere near as large as either of the stages of this system, and on top of that they're trying to come up with a design which is cheap to operate, which wasn't remotely on the cards during the Apollo program.
Honestly I think it's misleading to describe it as being "defined" as 1, precisely because it makes it sounds like someone was trying to squeeze the definition into a convenient shape.
I say, rather, that it naturally turns out to be that way because of the nature of the sequence. You can't really choose anything else
X^0 and 0! aren't actually special cases though, you can reach them logically from things which are obvious.
For X0: you can get from X(n) to X(n-1) by dividing by X. That works for all n, so we can say for example that 2³ is 2⁴/2, which is 16/2 which is 8.
Similarly, 2¹/2 is 2⁰, but it's also obviously 1.
The argument for 0! is basically the same. 3! is 1x2x3, and to go to 2! you divide it by 3.
You can go from 1! to 0! by dividing 1 by 1.
In both cases the only thing which is special about 1 is that any number divided by itself is 1, just like any number subtracted from itself is 0
Training LLMs on text which has been generated by an LLM is actually pretty problematic. The model can easily collapse, becoming completely useless. That's why they always try and source really clean training data, which is becoming increasingly difficult
I didn't comment on that at all, because it's not relevant to the point I was actually making, which is that people treating the output of an LLM as if it were derived from any factual source at all is really problematic, because it isn't.
You're putting words in my mouth, and inventing arguments I never made.
I didn't say anything about whether the training data is stolen or not. I also didn't say a single word about intelligence, or originality.
I haven't been tricked into using one piece of language over another, I'm a software engineer and know enough about how these systems actually work to reach my own conclusions.
There is not a database tucked away in the LLM anywhere which you could search through and find the phrases which it was trained on, it simply doesn't exist.
That isn't to say it's completely impossible for an LLM to spit out something which formed part of the training data, but it's pretty rare. 99% of what it generates doesn't come from anywhere in particular, and you wouldn't find it in any of the sources which were fed to the model in training.
That simply isn't true. There's nothing in common between an LLM and a search engine, except insofar as the people developing the LLM had access to search engines, and may have used them during their data gathering efforts for training data
I couldn't find the actual pinout for the 8 pin package, but the block diagrams make me think they're power, ground, and 6 general purpose pins which can all be GPIO.
Other functions, like ADC, SPI and I2C (all of which it has) will be secondary or tertiary functions on those same pins, selected in software.
So the actual answer you're looking for is basically that all of the pins are everything, and the pinout is almost entirely software defined
How did you calculate that? The question didn't even mention a specific speed, just "near the speed of light".
The kinetic energy for a grain of sand near the speed of light is somewhere between "quite a lot" and "literally infinity" (which is, in a sense, the reason you can't actually reach light speed without a way to supply infinite energy).
For once, I don't think that particular charge is entirely inconsistent with the dictionary definition.
He's accused of killing a member of the public in the hope of frightening everyone else in that person's position into taking some kind of action.
I think the law says something about killing for a "political purpose", with the goal of changing some kind of public policy or behaviour. That's not an unreasonable interpretation of what happened, I think.
Unfortunately that means they get to use the laws which were written to deal with mass murder and bombing public spaces, which I don't think is particularly appropriate but doesn't seem out of line with the law
Sure, but there are far more things which will kill the entire person at the same dose they'll kill the cancer than things which can be carefully controlled by choosing the right dose.
These studies which claim to kill cancer in a petri dish usually turn out to be the former, because not killing the host is the difficult part