Well, the map obviously does a lot of extrapolation. Look at Norway, for example. The bigger cities pollute the air in a 50km radius? In a country where heating is primarily electric? When Berlin and Paris don't seem to affect the air quality 20km away, despite having ten times the population?

Which branch your work was done on is noise, not signal. There is absolutely zero signal lost by rebasing, and it prunes a lot of noise. If your branch somehow carries information, that information should be in your commit message.

I disagree, without this info, I can't easily tell if any commit is part of a feature or is a simple hotfix. I need to rely on the commiter to include the info in the commit message, which is almost always not the case.

But you are still relying on them to name the branch in such a way it encodes that info. It is unclear why this is superior to messages in commits.

It's worse than that: the branch name is lost after a merge. That "merge branch xyz" is simply the default commit message. So it doesn't matter what you do, commit messages are all you have!

Nothing stops you from doing both renade and merge commits.

Except perhaps crappy gui options in GitHub. I really wish they added that option as a button.

How would you measure time going backwards if you can only perceive it going forwards? How can you "experience" everything around you going "backwards" if that includes your memory? How can you determine that a specific moment in time was arrived at by time going forward, or by going backwards?

>does it make sense to ask how something created after its emission could affect its path

The problem here is likely the concept of "after". It's relativity; what's "after" in our frame of reference isn't after in all frames of reference.

Another human being doesn't scare me, because they will think like a human, consider themselves human, and relate to humans.

A thinking machine is a total unknown. If human intelligence and machine intelligence are not aligned, then what?

> Readability is a non-concept really

Yes.

Readability without a clarification is a non-concept. You can't say "X should be readable" without giving some context and without clarifying who you are targeting. "Code should be readable" is a non-statement, yes.

Add "to most developers" for context and you'll probably get exactly what original claim meant.

It's not a non-statement. Rich Hickey explains it well, readability is not about the subjective factors, it's mostly about the objective ones (how many things are intertwined? the code that you can read & consider in isolation is readable. The code that behaves differently depending on global state, makes implicit assumptions about other parts of the system, etc - is unreadable/less readable - with readability decreasing with number of dependencies).

It can be further refined to

"to most developers who are most likely to interact with this code over its useful lifetime."

This means accounting for the audience. Something unfamiliar to the average random coder might be very familiar to anyone likely to touch a particular piece of code in a particular organization.

>"Code should be readable" is a non-statement, yes.

Oh, I completely disagree here. Take obfuscation for example, which you can carry on into things like minimized files in javascript. If you ever try to debug that crap without an original file (which happens far more than one would expect) you learn quickly about readability.

Imperial or metric?

Yes.

Defaulting to people having the same qualia is too much of a leap. You can't even begin to prove that your blue is my blue.

GTA VI's story mode won't be surpassed by a world model, but the fucking around and blowing things up part conceivably could, and that's how people are spending their time in GTA. I don't see a world model providing the framing needed to contextualize the mayhem, thereby making it fun, anytime soon myself, but down the line? Maybe.

I would envision someone creative working together with Gen AI being able to do something awesome, rather than just saying "make me a GTA clone".

But someone creative having a vision in their head and then just guiding AI to flesh out the assets, details, etc.

They will then learn the bitter lesson that convincing the GenAI to create something that brings your vision to life is impossible. It's a real talent to even be able to define for yourself what your vision is, and then to have artists achieve it visually in any medium is a process of back and forth between people with their own interpretations evolving the idea into something even better and cohesive.

GenAI will never get there because it can't, by design. It can riff on what was, and it can please the prompter, but it cannot challenge anyone creatively. No current LLM's can, either. I'll eat my hat if this is wrong in ten years, but it won't be.

It will generate refined slop ad nauseam, and that will train people's brains into spotting said slop faster using less energy. And then it'll be shunned.

You can just specify to a high degree and it will follow your instructions. You’re coping bro.

bro, how you could get the very precise and predictable editing bro that you have in a regular game engine bro. also bro, empty pretty world with nothing to do bro is lame bro

Hey, that's Hyrum's Law!

This is why I implemented

    private static readonly final sleep()

Sleep is still detectable via CPU load, so I added a thread that checks for load and runs some critical cleanup processes when it drops below a preset threshold.

Hope you don’t mind.

The obligatory related XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1172/

What if you dream about reflections?