At least plugging them all into Google translate, the pronunciations are actually all pretty similar, with Swedish being the most dissimilar

Has science gone too far?

Alternate take: I want something that does B, so I research methods of doing B and find one that’s good. Good thing I’m a smart boy that doesn’t make purchasing decisions based on what the marketing department says things do.

There’s plenty of good reasons to criticize or be concerned about LLMs. You don’t need to make up dumb ones.

Sure, but false advertising has nothing to do with how good an invention is, that’s a marketing problem.

No? I have a pair of shoes that advertise as being great for running and walking. I love walking in them, but they suck for running. Are you saying the shoes suck and I shouldn’t use them at all, even though I like walking in them?

Tools don’t care about intent, and neither should you. Only things that work and things that don’t. And if it doesn’t work, you should use a different tool.

I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but I think part of why it sucks now is all the Search Engine Optimization, of people trying to game Google into showing you their website, and only necessarily the one most pertinent to your search

I’ve used them both a good bit for D&D/TTRPG campaigns. The image generation has been great for making NPC portraits and custom magic item images. LLM’s have been pretty handy for practicing my DM-ing and improv, by asking it to act like a player and reacting to what it decides to do. And sometimes in the reverse by asking it to pitch interesting ideas for characters/dungeons/quest lines. I rarely took those in their entirety, but would often have bits and pieces I’d use.

I probably do this a good bit without really thinking about it. I don’t really care about walking in mud/grass and I like to give people their space. The fact that they continued to walk on the grass after they passed makes me think it wasn’t a big deal for them either.

I’m always reminded of https://youtu.be/ZI0w_pwZY3E for Skype

I mean, I guess, but that’s only a selling point to the small number of people without smartphones, which isn’t a large enough group to make it a sound business strategy.

Also, the “(after federal incentives)” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. The basic option for the 2023 Bolt comes out to about $20K after federal incentives, but you get way more range and a bunch of those “luxury” features this is missing. Considering how cheap low-end smart phones are, I have a hard time imagining that infotainment systems actually add more than 1-2% of the cost of the vehicle. Feels more like a type of virtue signal than a real cost-saving measure.

Corporations cannot create nontoxic social media, the incentives will always be there to make it toxic.

I don’t know that’s true. The incentives to make it toxic come from engagement being the goal, which is a function of advertising being the income. I’m not advocating for it, but if there were a flat subscription and no ads, I don’t think they’d have any economic pressures for toxicity.

Oh, I don’t heat it at all, I just eat it room temperature

I haven’t heard of that being what threading is, but that threading is about shared resourcing and memory space and not any special relationship with the scheduler.

Per the wiki:

On a multiprocessor or multi-core system, multiple threads can execute in parallel, with every processor or core executing a separate thread simultaneously; on a processor or core with hardware threads, separate software threads can also be executed concurrently by separate hardware threads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

I also think you might be misunderstanding the relationship between concurrency and parallelism; they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be concurrent through parallelism, as the wiki page has (emphasis mine):

Concurrency refers to the ability of a system to execute multiple tasks through simultaneous execution or time-sharing (context switching), sharing resources and managing interactions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)

Correct, which is why before I had said

I think OP is making a joke about python’s GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

If what you said were true, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense for OP to be making a joke about how even if the source includes multi threading, all his extra cores are wasted? And make your original comment suggesting a coding issue instead of a language issue pretty misleading?

But what you said is not correct. I just did a dumb little test

import threading 
import time

def task(name):
  time.sleep(600)

t1 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("1",))
t2 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("2",))
t3 = threading.Thread(target=task, args=("3",))

t1.start()
t2.start()
t3.start()

And then ps -efT | grep python and sure enough that python process has 4 threads. If you want to be even more certain of it you can strace -e clone,clone3 python ./threadtest.py and see that it is making clone3 syscalls.

I think OP is making a joke about python’s GIL, which makes it so even if you are explicitly multi threading, only one thread is ever running at a time, which can defeat the point in some circumstances.

I’m not sure I understand how you’d shred your fingers on them. I put my nail under the tab and lift until my finger can get under it

Klaus is a newer one, but has joined the tradition rotation

I don’t have data to support it, but I’d imagine that the job role within the military can make a big difference. Were you an officer, with a college degree, doing a lot of IT work and never deployed? You’re probably gonna be fine.

Were you an enlisted undez who scraped rust, or were deployed and suffering from PTSD? It’s gonna be a much harder time.