That's MIT. At a state university my friends were making in the ballpark of ~30k.
And yes, that is "next to nothing" compared to the salaries they make now after quitting and just finding work. And their outlooks are in significantly better shape, whereas one friend was highly depressed before.
People can also develop "deep expertise and specialized skills" through their work, and network via conferences, generally paid by their employer. Well, if they can find a job as a junior nowadays.
No, it's an observation that the first primary usage seemed to disagree (not that it did) and so it was observed that the second alt was used by the commenter above
OED has a lot to say about gourmand, Chesterfield in his 1758 letter that you quoted was saying that the Landgrave has a well stocked table .. good food and a lot of it, for he is a Gourmand. Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract from Statesman's Man that also about having a lot (but with no talent for preparation) - excess over taste:
Their best cooks have no more idea of dressing a turtle than the gourmands themselves
And, again, the first 1a primary most common usage cited in the OED is:
1. a. One who is over-fond of eating, one who eats greedily or to excess, a glutton.
It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure .. but as seen in the OED for a great deal of time the emphasis has always been on the quantity of good food rather than mere quality of good food.
This really gets on my nerves. ishouldstayaway provided a perfectly valid resource to support the initial statement that gourmand isn't just about quantity anymore.
> Well, you had to go to #2
This is clearly a disparaging remark meant to discredit their comment. So what if it's #2? It's a definition in multiple dictionaries. This usage warranted its own definition.
> in an American English dictionary
Same thing here- italicizing American as if it means anything. Again, both Merriam Webster and the OED carry both definitions.
> It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure
"Recent" being 1758. 268 years. Long enough that it doesn't warrant a nit anymore.
> the first 1a primary
Again: the non-quantity usage warranted a dictionary definition.
> Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract
Ignoring the 1804 extract before that and the extracts after it.
All in all I find this type of interaction (needing to be "correct" instead of accepting that there are multiple usages) to be extremely distasteful, leaving a sour taste in my mouth.
Because the bugs were caused by programmer error, not anything inherent to rust. It was more notable due to cloudflare being a critical dependency for half the internet, but that particular issue could've happened in any language.
This kind of melodramatic reaction to rust code is fatiguing, honestly. Rust does not bill itself as some programming panacea or as a bug free language, and neither do any of the people I know using it. That's a strawman that just won't go away.
Rust applies constraints regarding memory use and that nearly eliminates a class of bugs, provided safe usage. And that's compelling to enough people that it warrants migration from other languages that don't focus on memory safety. Bugs introduced during a rewrite aren't notable. It happens, they get fixed, life moves on.
> caused by programmer error, not anything inherent to Rust
Your argument does not work as a praise for Rust because the bugs in any program are caused by programmer errors, except the very rare cases when there are bugs in the compiler tool chain, which are caused by errors of other programmers.
The bugs in a C or C++ program are also caused by programmer errors, they are not inherent to C/C++. It is rather trivial to write C/C++ carefully, in order to make impossible any access outside bounds, numeric overflow, use-after-free, etc.
The problem is that many programmers are careless, especially when they might be pressed by tight time schedules, so they make some of these mistakes. For the mass production of software, it is good to use more strict programming languages, including Rust, where the compiler catches as many errors as possible, instead of relying on better programmers.
The cloudflare bug was the equivalent of an uncaught exception caused by a malformed config file. There's no recovery from a malformed config file - the software couldn't possibly have done its job. What's salient is that they were using an alternative to exceptions, because people were told exceptions were error-prone, and using this thing instead would make it easier to write bug-free code. But don't do the equivalent of not catching them!
And then, it turned out to not really be any better than exceptions.
Most Rust evangelism is like this. "In Rust you do X and this makes your code have fewer bugs!" Well no it doesn't. Manually propagating exceptions still makes the program crash and requires more typing, and doesn't emit a stack trace.
That was why I brought it up. I wasn't trying to be snarky or haughty. Thank you for filling in the gaps, I should have done that instead of the 1-liner.
This is a bit more than overselling a proof of concept. He made claims that were not correct, and presented some LLM generated code as point of pride. And not on his blog, but a company's website.
He's emblematic of the era we now live in. Vibe coded projects that the "developer" didn't learn anything from, posted using LLMs. People have zero shame, zero curiosity, zero desire in learning and understanding what they're working on.
Also it doesn't make sense to escalate an interaction by swearing at a person and simultaneously asking them to calm down.
> Also it doesn't make sense to escalate an interaction by swearing at a person and simultaneously asking them to calm down.
I found it fun :-).
I kindly ask to try to empathise with a random human being who is most certainly not used to be shamed publicly, and they tell me to check myself in the mirror.
Yeah, and oscillators ringing together in an FFT choir based on notes from a diffused image is absolutely, totally not an AI, just algorithms. Really, why be so rude, given you understand the math behind it? Obtuse is not a nice word, not something I would say to people at random. Because, you see, back in the day generative grammars were called AI, so were so many other discreet structures which are employed in music generation, sorry production, on an everyday basis.
Algorithmic progression generation IS IN USE for years, sorry you didn't mention, or perhaps you don't listen that much to everyday radio. Markov chains, constraint solvers, and rule-based harmony live in many VSTs... the fact there are so many "experimentors" out dare winding knobs to match a pleasurable pattern, does not change the fact they be 100% ignorant about the 'deux ex machina'.
I'm surrounded by producers having absolutely no clue about the vast amount of actual AI and actual probabilistic algorithms that make their "unique" sounds possible. And all of them are 100% ignorant of what AI means when they say it, because they don't mean a specific thing.
How is this not AI? Or one needs an transformer-based model to call it AI? This whole story did not start an year or two ago, you may be late for history class though. The fact there's been this moving marketing concept of what "AI" actually is, does not change the reality of most modern music (including acoustic) at some point of the production process getting artificially enhanced by honestly super-complex systems that are intelligent enough to do what otherwise would take 20x more effort to get right.
There has to be some consideration for cross-language discussion where english is not the native language of the poster. The usage and intent there is completely different than a native speaker lazily having gpt spit out a comment for them.
@huimang, thank you so much for your understanding. I truly appreciate you recognizing the effort and intent behind my words despite the language barrier. Your support gives me great courage to keep participating here.
And yes, that is "next to nothing" compared to the salaries they make now after quitting and just finding work. And their outlooks are in significantly better shape, whereas one friend was highly depressed before.
People can also develop "deep expertise and specialized skills" through their work, and network via conferences, generally paid by their employer. Well, if they can find a job as a junior nowadays.
reply