Zangoose

Reaching a middle ground on an Internet discussion? No, it can't be. There must be something wrong here. I need to keep arguing about minor things like daily routines. Why else would I be here?

/s if it wasn't obvious. This thread makes me happy, have a good day :)

Obviously, it's a silly semantic debate, and someone could equally judge me for wanting my coffee beans roasted and ground "why not eat the berries fresh if you say you love coffee‽".

My point is that it would be silly to judge someone for this, just like it's silly to judge someone for putting creamer in coffee.

Edit: also, what about drinks like mochas, cappuccinos, macchiatos, etc. which also have other ingredients mixed in? Generally it's still fine to call those forms of coffee, no?

Random side note: I've had chocolate-dipped espresso beans before and they're actually a pretty good snack. You just can't eat too many of them because of the caffeine content.

I think the idea is that you can eventually get an approximation of whatever wave-like curve you want by merging several pure sin/cos functions with varying amplitudes, wavelengths, and offsets

Fun fact: this is mostly how JPEG works - it uses fourier transforms to approximate an image in a way that takes up much less storage than storing information about each pixel.

Yeah that's still gatekeeping though. Coffee is coffee regardless of what you put in it. Even if it's gross according to my own individual taste, it's still coffee. Saying anything else is just "better-than-you" gatekeeping.

Edit: it's also nothing like your example at all, because coffee with creamer is still literally made with real coffee, while an apple jacks pop tart is almost definitely not made with real apples.

Imagine gatekeeping caffeine

OP mentioned having used Linux for 4 weeks. If they are interested in learning more about Linux, I feel like even Arch would be a better next step.

I love NixOS and have been using it for over a year at this point but sometimes when things don't work I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. I've been using Linux for ~7 years now.

It's not magic, it's adoption rates. I'm not saying the money or resources are useless, but as it is right now, I think more people would benefit from actually trying to use rust in more large-scale projects (like R4L, windows, android, redox, servo, etc.) and using that experience to inform actual language development. I don't think it makes sense to do a full revamp of the compiler until projects like those are actually proven. In the meantime it makes more sense to allocate funding/dev resources to those projects (or at least the open source ones)

Someone already did that a bit ago with a bunch of fireworks and I think it worked?

revamp Rust to produce lightweight binaries, have a stable compiler and for it to be way quicker in compilation

It really isn't that simple though. Rust's compiler isn't stable because the language itself is still being improved. This type of thing will only improve as adoption increases and real-world problems get ironed out. You can't just throw money and devs at it and expect the problem to be solved.

It's also not like the developers don't care about compile time, but the nature of the language (strict compiler checks which catch things before runtime) will inherently lead to something slower that other languages' compilers. There are probably still improvements they can make, but it's not as simple as just deciding to rewrite/revamp it and expecting massive speedups.

Also cooling! Right now each interaction from each person using chatGPT uses roughly a bottle's worth of water per 100 words generated (according to a research study in 2023). This was with GPT-4 so it may be slightly more or slightly less now, but probably more considering their models have actually gotten more expensive for them to host (more energy used -> more heat produced -> more cooling needed).

Now consider how that scales with the amount of people using ChatGPT every day. Even if energy is clean everything else about AI isn't.

The problem is that we only have a finite amount of energy. If all of our clean energy output is going toward AI then yeah it's clean but it means we have to use other less clean sources of energy for things that are objectively more important than AI - powering homes, food production, hospitals, etc.

Even "clean" energy still has downsides to the environment also like noise pollution (impacts local wildlife), taking up large amounts of space (deforestation), using up large amounts of water for cooling, or having emissions that aren't greenhouse gases, etc. Ultimately we're still using unfathomably large amounts of energy to train and use a corporate chatbot trained on all our personal data, and that energy use still has consequences even if it's "clean"

Ngl I'm Gen Z and I have no clue who either of these people are.

I also kind of live under a rock tho, the only TV show I ever really followed was the first few seasons on Stranger Things, and I don't listen to pop music. I don't really pay attention to specific actors/celebrities unless they do something bad enough outside of acting that it breaks into my news feeds.