The NYT writes things that are factually incorrect. Why do we have such a high standard for these models when we don't apply them elsewhere?
The New York Times publishes a "corrections" section in each issue. Let me know where I can view the 60TB file where ChatGPT fesses up to its daily fails.
"Things exist as they are today and can't possible change or improve in the future".
People lie all the time too. You're just radicalizing yourself to create a bias for no reason other than concocting a straw man expectation that you made up for yourself. What's the point of that?
Yes, just like people receiving healthcare should pay for their procedures, instead of making everyone in the nation pay for it. Abolish the NHS amirite!!!
Hmm, probably not a very good argument for you to make unless you are a libertarian, in which case you wouldn’t be complaining about tax breaks anyhow.
It's a house, not a wall. And it's not being built by a robot. Adding the brick is inconsequential.
Go to any building site and ask a bricklayer if adding a single custom brick to the construction will stop them building the house and he'll laugh in your face.
You're missing GP's point. The objection is not to the inclusion of swift bricks in new houses but the belief that it is sufficient to stabilize/restore the population, because relatively few new houses are being constructed.
Debuggers were people pulling bugs out of walls of vacuum tubes. They monitored and literally debugged a computer. Monitor made more sense at first, they monitored for bugs.
>> the fetch API was so poorly thought out that it was not possible to get an indicate of progress - all if gives you is inprogress or done (nothing in between).
>> As a result the loading indicator can only indicate in-progress or done.
> This is a failure of whatever framework the web dev is leaning on instead of actually programming the computer.
None of the gains you list have anything to do with user interfaces. They would all or mostly be possible in any of the older desktop environments shown.
The screenshots in the post include many old applications, sometimes jarring to modern sensibilities. I think it's fair to have a discussion here about the evolution of application UI too, no?
reply