But C syntax clearly hints to int *p being the expected format.
Otherwise you would only need to do int* p, q to declare two pointers… however doing that only declares p as pointer. You are actually required to type * in front of each variable name intended to hold a pointer in the declaration: int *p, *q;
I feel it’s a balance. Each operation has a purpose.
Rebasing makes sense when you are working in a feature branch together with other people so you rebase your own commits to keep the feature branch lean before you finally merge it into the main branch, instead of polluting the history with a hard to follow mess of sub branches for each person. Or when you yourself ended up needing to rewrite (or squash) some commits to clean up / reorganize related changes for the same feature. Or when you already committed something locally without realizing you were not on sync with the latest version of a remote branch you are working on and you don’t wanna have it as a 1-single-commit branch that has to be merged.
Squashing with git merge --squash is also very situational… ideally you wouldn’t need it if your commits are not messy/tiny/redundant enough that combining them together makes it better.
Yes… how is “reducing exclamation marks” a good thing when you do it by adding a ' (not to be confused with , ´,‘or’` …which are all different characters).
Does this rely on the assumption that everyone uses a US QWERTY keyboard where ! happens to be slightly more inconvenient than typing '?
Then check-out their due date, specially if they have been left out in a stack for too long, before you pop one out.
Many hosts allow you to set rules to protect branches from getting their commits removed in the remote (in fact, I think that’s the default for gitlab main branches) or to prevent people from pushing their commits to them directly.
I expect even “the main branch has to stay more or less in sync with origin/main” can be automated… though it might not be what you always want, depending how you work.
be nice
What niceness level exactly?
The most nice I can be in my system is -20… but being too nice to one process leaves others with less time and resources in their life.
Yes, the way his hand is positioned, it would not have worked if they had wanted to make it hold the wooden stick. They’d have needed to edit the hand too much and it would have likely been noticeable / even weirder.
Probably they decided: f*ck it, let them grab it however they want. Maybe it’ll even become a thing.
And it looks like it worked, since we are talking about it and spreading the ad. Smart advertising, imho.
I mean, it would technically be possible to build a computer out or organic and biological live tissue. It wouldn’t be very practical but it’s technically possible.
I just don’t think it would be very reasonable to consider that the one thing making it intelligent is that they are made of proteins and living cells instead of silicates and diodes. I’d argue that such a claim would, on itself, be a strong claim too.
Note that “real world truth” is something you can never accurately map with just your senses.
No model of the “real world” is accurate, and not everyone maps the “real world truth” they personally experience through their senses in the same way… or even necessarily in a way that’s really truly “correct”, since the senses are often deceiving.
A person who is blind experiences the “real world truth” by mapping it to a different set of models than someone who has additional visual information to mix into that model.
However, that doesn’t mean that the blind person can “never understand” the “real world truth” …it just means that the extent at which they experience that truth is different, since they need to rely in other senses to form their model.
Of course, the more different the senses and experiences between two intelligent beings, the harder it will be for them to communicate with each other in a way they can truly empathize. At the end of the day, when we say we “understand” someone, what we mean is that we have found enough evidence to hold the belief that some aspects of our models are similar enough. It doesn’t really mean that what we modeled is truly accurate, nor that if we didn’t understand them then our model (or theirs) is somehow invalid. Sometimes people are both technically referring to the same “real world truth”, they simply don’t understand each other and focus on different aspects/perceptions of it.
Someone (or something) not understanding an idea you hold doesn’t mean that they (or you) aren’t intelligent. It just means you both perceive/model reality in different ways.
+1 on this. Kobos actually use Linux under the hood. And although the default UI is proprietary, it’s super easy to install KOReader.
You don’t even need to hack into it some custom firmware, just a sideloader, which normally doesn’t break even if you actually updated the base firmware.
Here the official tutorial on how to do it: https://github.com/koreader/koreader/wiki/Installation-on-Kobo-devices
The AI can only judge by having a neural network trained on what’s a human and what’s an AI (and btw, for that training you need humans)… which means you can break that test by making an AI that also accesses that same neural network and uses it to self-test the responses before outputting them, providing only exactly the kind of output the other AI would give a “human” verdict on.
So I don’t think that would work very well, it’ll just be a cat & mouse race between the AIs.
It could still be bayesian reasoning, but a much more complex one, underlaid by a lot of preconceptions (which could have also been acquired in a bayesian way).
Even if the result is random, a highly pre-trained bayessian network that has the experience of seeing many puzzles or tests before that do follow non-random patterns might expect a non-random pattern… so those people might have learned to not expect true randomness, since most things aren’t random.
Yes… the chinese experiment misses the point, because the Turing test was never really about figuring out whether or not an algorithm has “conscience” (what is that even?)… but about determining if an algorithm can exhibit inteligent behavior that’s equivalent/indistinguishable from a human.
The chinese room is useless because the only thing it proves is that people don’t know what conscience is, or what are they even are trying to test.
A test that didn’t require a human could theoretically be tested automatically by the machine preemptively and solved easily.
I can’t imagine how would you test this in a way that wouldn’t require a human.
Things straying from his vision could also be a good sign. Change doesn’t necessarily equates to bad.
It’s not like his vision was without flaws. He’s had disagreements with the people from Matrix, for example.
And please, get all countries to actually start properly accepting ISO 8601 format for dates as a mandatory universal standard…
Obligatory reference: https://xkcd.com/1179/