Normal, mainstream software expected users to run DOS commands and edit autoexec.bat/config.sys files, and installing new hardware often involved configuring motherboard DIP switches and trying to figure out what "IRQ" and "DMA" means. There is no equivalent to that today. Plug it in, turn it on, and you're done. 9 times out of 10 you don't even need to install a driver, your OS already has it. Where does the door to learning and discovery present itself? With plug and play systems and walled garden app stores, everywhere a user could possibly come across some more advanced concepts has been muted and decorated over with pretty conveniences. Computers are toasters now.
Everything is just silicon oxide gates being saturated and drained and turned on and off in various patterns very rapidly in a way that means something to us. That Fortran/C/C++/Assembly depends on that tiny two-MOSFET AND gate in the ALU to do the AND correctly every time.
Programming languages at the basic level are just an automated way of putting numbers into a calculator, processing them, and getting another number/status/flag back and doing something else with it based on the result.
If they didn't have guns, I wouldn't feel the need to have guns. But since there exist people who would love to shoot me for being who I am, I feel I need guns. It's like a societal standoff.
”There is a difference between displaying flags in curriculum when you’re teaching on them,” he said. “You don’t censor history here. That’s not what we’re doing.”
Sometimes efficiency gains aren't worth the cost and complexity. Regenerative braking produces a shitton more power than this, so it's worth it (also, the motors are already there, just run them in reverse and turn them into generators). You can get the same thing by slapping a solar panel on the roof. Which nobody is doing because it's too costly and complex for what you get out of it.
It's not sustainable. The reason the Apollo missions never were further developed after the landings was because the entire program was designed to get to the moon as fast as possible, where money was no object, in order to beat the Soviets. We don't need anything like that now. If we are to build bases and establish a permanent presence, we can't be using a vehicle that takes billions per launch.
Something like the Space Shuttle program. Not cheap, but also not with an Apollo price tag, where it can fly for decades without some politician seeing a giant wad of cash going out and getting ideas about cutting it. That's what Starship is supposed to be. A Space Shuttle 2.0. It's just unfortunate that the world's richest Nazi has control of it.
I'm not sure I'd like that. I kind of like there being a technological filter. It prevents the Fediverse from turning into Facebook or X. The public Internet has been around and part of society for 40 years now. If you still don't get it in 2025, that ain't everyone else's fault. People using the Internet in the 90s had to deal with way more than just figuring out what an "instance" is.
$24 billion Space Launch System (SLS), citing high costs and outdated technology.
Fuck Musk, but they ain't wrong. It's just rearranged space shuttle parts designed to funnel pork barrel money to the same old contractors (except now we even gotta throw away all the RS-25 engines instead of reusing them). There's nothing fundamentally new there that they didn't already do in the 60s. It kind of is a step backward in terms of aerospace tech.
Yeah the article has a link to another one where "OMG it modified its own code to bypass restraints", and then you read it and realize, no, it didn't suddenly gain self awareness and try to "singularity" itself, it just recognized a problem and responded with a pattern it learned before to try to fix it, and spat it out at the researchers. That's all.
The clickbait and misunderstanding from both anti and pro-AI folks is getting nauseating.
TimeSquirrel @ TimeSquirrel @kbin.melroy.org Posts 1Comments 924Joined 1 yr. ago 