The vast majority of real world ML code today is written in languages like Python and C++. Relatively few people outside of academia and online forums are functional language enthusiasts. The industry is also looking like most actual coding is going to be done by LLMs going forward, so it makes little sense to design new languages with a niche potential user base since LLMs need a ton of training data. I’m think that was a factor in deciding to base mojo on Python along with the other reasons they state.
agree with all of this. Though i'd say: since the language is mostly read by humans rather than written, in my opinion, it makes even more sense to have a language syntax that actually matches intent. In the case of Machine Learning, it's mostly connecting functions together and acting on them, which matches functional syntax.
LLMs are also already very effective at writing ML-inspired syntax (like ocaml or f#) as they have plenty of data to train on, making llms effective from day one if a similar syntax was chosen.
If I recall correctly, warp is older than ghostty. Warp became popular because it was one of the well maintained rust-based terminals, and it had some simple AI features like completions and natural language command recognition. That’s why I started using it at least and I liked the dark theme better than that of any other terminal. I barely used the AI features initially but my company pays for it if I want to use it so I started using it occasionally.
The analogy between nuclear fission and quantum computing doesn’t really work. Fission was a relatively new physical phenomenon the Manhattan Project scientists were studying to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction on a scale that too had no precedent except in natural disasters. Quantum computing is a new technology that is supposed to make already effectively computable problems computable faster; it is ideally supposed to provide an increase in capacity, not capability. It should definitely be able to make tiny computations work before going for the bigger problems. That’s how all computing works, if it can’t solve simple problems, it’s never going to solve bigger ones. What you’re saying here essentially sounds like “there will be a magical event one day when quantum computing solves the biggest computing problems and we’ll all realize it works.”
I am not particularly invested either which way about the likelihood of quantum computing being a major breakthrough or not but this is seeming like yet one more area of computing research like crypto and LLMs which in recent years is increasingly being flooded by people on a hype train.
I didn’t say it wasn’t factually correct. I assumed it was mostly correct, perhaps a bit sensationalist for comedic purposes. I found it quite funny actually. My answer above was just that it was not actually written by the Elsevier company like that user seems to have thought.
This entire thread is making clear that constructivists want to speak on behalf of everyone while in the real word the vast majority of mathematicians or logicians don’t belong to their niche school of mathematics/philosophy.
First big disaster of its kind directly resulting in death, almost certain to get more attention. Plus it allowed for substantial propaganda points (probably well deserved) against the USSR during the Cold War, their opponents would have been stupid not to take advantage of the disaster to ridicule them for their incompetence.
Same here, loved the idea since I was a kid and I spend a lot more money on gadgets than I probably should but somehow managed to avoid getting a smartwatch because it doesn’t do anything a smartphone does better. I just wear a simple casio solar powered watch I got for about $100 which I never have to charge. I still like the idea of something programmable though, but this watch in OP is a bit too DIY for my tastes.
Smart watches, in general, have a better GPS antenna. I tried running using just my phone's GPS and it's all over the place, completely unusable for that task (it showed me crossing walls, canals, running in circles where I went in a straight line etc.)
Also, a lot of smart watches come with a pulseox, so, you can look up your pulse any time you like :D Not super useful unless you are working out, but there's that.
We can talk about all this stuff on an American form, but good luck talking about any of China's issues on a Chinese Forum. Lets not talk about how China regularly kills Catholic priests and bishops. Anyone who tries to glaze China is a propagandized fool.
When terrorists like the Trump administration openly admit to it in some cases and threaten to do it in others, and we see the evidence, it’s easy to believe our eyes and ears over your fantasies.
reply