The end of your comment was
But the productivity and quality debates are absolutely ridiculous
Which is a general statement and not dealing with your specific circumstance. If a tool works for you, by all means keep using it.
However, broadly across software that is not the case. So the “productivity and quality debates” are not ridiculous … the data supports the sceptics.
Consider: the facts
People are very bad at judging their own productivity, and AI consistently makes devs feel like they are working faster, while in fact slowing them down.
I’ve experienced it myself - it feels fucking great to prompt a skeleton and have something brand new up and running in under an hour. The good chemicals come flooding in because I’m doing something new and interesting.
Then I need to take a scalpel to a hundred scattered lines to get CI to pass. Then I need to write tests that actually test functionality. Then I start extending things and realize the implementation is too rigid and I need to change the architecture.
It is as this point that I admit to myself that going in intentionally with a plan and building it myself the slow way would have saved all that pain and probably got the final product shipped sooner, even if the prototype was shipped later.
I’ve had good luck with their mid-high end kitchen appliances and washer/dryer.
Not impressed with the TV and the AI update made the UI very slow and unresponsive. Next one will not be LG.
To put some math around CO2 usage:
The entire structure of plants is built primarily from CO2. A tomato plant and fruit grows from seeding to maturity in about 60 days, and will yield about a kilogram of dry plant mass.
That mass will be about 20% carbon, meaning each plant would need to uptake a net 3.3 grams of carbon - 12.3 grams of CO2 per day. A person exhales around 1Kg of CO2 per day, or about as much as would be needed to supply 81 tomato plants.
It is a useful distinction when considering possible rehabilitation. In general conversation it’s just weird.
It’s never been tested, so it is an open question. Not many people would be bold enough to try, and I don’t think Trump actually will either, but eventually this will go to the Supreme court.
The main problem is, at the time the 22nd was written, there were plenty of cases of presidents who weren’t elected to the office, so why would the text specify only the electoral pathway if it were meant to cover all possible pathways? Even in the most broad reading (no elected official can become president after having been elected president twice), there remain appointed positions within the line of succession - namely secretary of state - that would completely avoid the election clause.
I agree with you that the intent of the 22nd was to ensure a 2 term limit. Unfortunately the language is not that definitive and the current administration has little concern for following the unwritten rules.
Not quite… the constitutional requirements to be president are simple: Natural born citizen, 35+ years old, and US residency for at least 14 years.
It is an open legal question whether and how the 12th and 22nd interact to determine eligibility. The intent seems clear, but the language of the 22nd very plainly concerns only election to the office, not assumption of it.
So the constitution doesn’t actually prohibit anyone from serving more than 2 terms as president, it prohibits someone being elected to the office of president more than twice (or once if they assumed office for more than 2 years of someone else’s term.
In 2029 Trump could be elected as speaker of the house and then Vance and Dr. Evil resign as POTUS and VP and bam, Trump round 3.
Trump could also be directly elected to the Vice Presidency, though the legal ground there is shakier given the 12th amendment.
Ultimately, SCOTUS would need to weigh in because there is enough ambiguity in the constitution to allow for just the scenarios above.
Good thing SCOTUS is chock full of no-nonsense nonpartisan jurists of the highest integrity.
UN votes are largely symbolic, they have no actual policy function in almost all cases - member states must create and ratify separate treaties for that.
Removing the veto just leads to the veto-holders even more flagrantly undermining the UN’s authority.
Liberal Democratic Party is the name of the party, they are conservative in Japanese politics.
‘liberal’ in general political discourse doesn’t mean ‘left-wing trending towards communist’ as it is used in American communication, it is simply the historical opposing view to absolutism (e.g. Absolute monarchy). Liberal thought centers around individual freedoms; modern-day conservatives advocate for permissive individual freedoms by limiting government’s role in as many facets of life as possible (in theory, real parties and platforms have little to do with their marketing). Modern-day liberals advocate for positively identfying and enforcing freedoms through law. Illiberal thought is common in the west, and advocates for limiting individual freedoms for one reason or another - Germany’s prohibitions against Nazi speech, and the US’s restrictions on recreational drugs are examples of illiberal policies.
Bro it isn’t worth it. I respect what you are trying to do, but Lemmy is an echo chamber on these things. You are completely right in what you are saying, but you’re wasting your time commenting here.
Clearly, if Kamala had won she would have personally resurrected every dead Palestinian and single-handedly repaired all the infrastructure. Let’s conveniently ignore that she was Vice President in an administration that circumvented Congress multiple times to deliver arms with less oversight, that (almost) every US elected official has vocally supported Israel’s actions for 70+ years, and that Kamala herself committed to nothing of substance on the topic.
Have never listened to Rogan.
What were his claims about the vaccines, mask efficacy, and ivermectin?
There were plenty of problems with the concrete policies on offer.
‘most lethal military’, tough on crime, secure the border… it was ridiculous to see how far right the supposed left went in search of votes. Harris’s platform looked more like Trump’s from 2016 than it did Hilary’s.
It depends on the type of fusion.
The easiest fusion reaction is deuterium/tritium - two isotopes of hydrogen. The vast majority of the energy of that reaction is released as neutrons, which are very difficult to contain and will irradiate the reactor’s containment vessel. The walls of the reactor will degrade, and will eventually need to be replaced and the originals treated as radioactive waste.
Lithium/deuterium fusion releases most of its energy in the form of alpha particles - making it much more practical to harness the energy for electrical generation - and releases something like 80% fewer high energy neutrons – much less radioactive waste. As a trade-off, the conditions required to sustain the reaction are even more extreme and difficult to maintain.
There are many many possible fusion reactions and multiple containment methods - some produce significant radioactive waste and some do not. In terms of energy output, the energy released per reaction event is much higher than in fission, but it is much harder to concentrate reaction events, so overall energy output is much lower until some significant advancement is made on the engineering challenges that have plagued fusion for 70+ years.
If the VP spot is vacant, the president selects a new VP who must then be confirmed by the House and Senate; per the 25th amendment:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Don’t see mention of fixes for the resume-from-sleep bugs that have been around since at least 6 :'(
No, not even close.
I’ve used Unix systems for years at work, and have dual-booted windows with various flavors of Linux at home for just as long. When I just need something to work, particularly something new or after a stressful day at work, I just use windows.
Why? Because it will just work. Maybe it won’t work precisely how I want it to, maybe it will send all my data to Bill’s push notifications, but it will run. In the rare case it doesn’t, a quick google will fix it.
Compare that to Linux, where most things will work most of the time. And when they don’t, you get to hunt through GitHub issues off-the-clock like a peasant, wading through comments from people with entirely different configurations and ‘dunno it works for me’.
Linux is for tinkerers, and for people who want a Unix shell and can’t afford a Mac, it has a long way to go to be more than that.
Bro delete this I just shi myself omw to work
An inherent flaw in transformer architecture (what all LLMs use under the hood) is the quadratic memory cost to context. The model needs 4 times as much memory to remember its last 1000 output tokens as it needed to remember the last 500. When coding anything complex, the amount of code one has to consider quickly grows beyond these limits. At least, if you want it to work.
This is a fundamental flaw with transformer - based LLMs, an inherent limit on the complexity of task they can ‘understand’. It isn’t feasible to just keep throwing memory at the problem, a fundamental change in the underlying model structure is required. This is a subject of intense research, but nothing has emerged yet.
Transformers themselves were old hat and well studied long before these models broke into the mainstream with DallE and ChatGPT.
The peace prize is awarded by a Norwegian committee, the other prizes are awarded by Swedish committees.