I assumed it was...?

If not, who or what decides the ranking moment-by-moment? dang?

Good ol' _____-clicking saves the day again!

Does experience founding a business make you better at founding another, unrelated business? I would say it does to some extent.

> and want you want me to maintain it for you

> to to document it for you

> Linus Torvalds is famous famous

> A pool request

> They're you you're you're morally obligated

There's a reason most people pay other people to do these things for them.

In my defence, even Stroustrup acknowledges the language is too big and complicated, and it's continually getting bigger.

I don't know what will happen either. I hope that you and I and other hardworking, basically good people will continue to have a somewhat meaningful, somewhat pleasant existence in the post-AI world, and I think that might be possible, but I just don't know.

Is it possible that the spec could be factorised into something higher-level and more modular? If not, can you give a flavour of the type of unavoidable esoteric detail? (One area I can see lots of complications is when dealing with versioned data, especially in multiple interacting systems -- naively, correctness needs to be proven for every combination of versions, even if some are never seen.)

Being a binary blob is not a strong argument all by itself. chrome.exe, firefox.exe, etc. are also binary blobs. I have no love for Adobe, but that specific criticism is weak.

Classic testing: A human comes up with some concrete example inputs for which they know the "right answers" (corresponding outputs). They write code that runs the code under test, gets its actual outputs, and compares them to the desired outputs.

Property testing: A human comes up with a precise way of randomly generating concrete example (input, desired output) pairs. They write some code to describe how to generate the pairs, often using a declarative DSL that describes only constraints on the inputs and outputs, with the understanding that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted, like "The input can be any list of between 0 and 100 integers each between -500 and 500" and "Every integer in the input must appear the same number of times in the output". They then write some more code (often a single line) to ask the computer to use this "spec" to randomly generate, say, 1000 such pairs, or as many pairs as can be checked in 1s. The computer generates the pairs itself, runs the code under test on each input and and checks its output matches the desired output.

Formal verification: A human comes up with a spec that typically describes conditions that must hold for all (input, output) pairs. This may look very similar to, or even exactly like the DSL used for property testing, though in general there are other conditions that can be expressed that cannot be checked with property testing even in principle -- for example, checking that the program always eventually terminates. The main difference is that the code under test is never actually run; instead, the computer analyses the source code itself to attempt mathematically prove that the stated conditions hold. How to actually accomplish this is a field of active research, but one basic approach is called "symbolic execution". To greatly simplify, if we forget about loops and conditionals for a moment, the idea is that we can write down things we know must be true after each statement executes, based on the things we knew must be true before it executed. So for example if x is a variable initially containing any integer (and we ignore overflow) then after the line

    x = x * x

    if x > 50:
      x = 42

    something_afterwards(x)

How dare they only give me this much free stuff! I want that much free stuff!

Whenever companies do things like this, it's both, or at least trying hard to be. To the extent that it's perceived by developers (that is, potential OpenAI customers) as helping OSS, it's effective marketing. This perception may or may not correspond to reality.

People can argue about whether that's what should happen, and there are nuances on both sides there, but that is undeniably what will happen.

Are landlords allowed to increase rents when the tenant changes? If so then yes, I would expect them to do so, so if they don't, there needs to be some other explanation.

If they don't, then obviously they'll prefer to keep their long-term, pays-on-time, probably-not-wrecking-the-place existing tenant.