Being on merely a money (or some money) would likely not be as impressive in said circumstances, and so whilst being grammatically possible in English, it shouldn't seem so likely the sort of thing anyone would ever have had to say.

If you are answering which instrument you play, it's the former, but if we are talking the profession it's the latter, because you don't say then that you play a piano.

Your "papers" have only a single author and no current citations. It is not clear you are able to work with other people. The papers claim to offer results but no theory about why those results are the best possible. They read like sales whitepapers not scientific work. Reddit comments on the thread you linked to said they weren't able to reproduce your work.

I'm not looking to buy magic beans for my sales team.

There were zero Hebrew Bibles at that time.

The Bologna scroll is found seventy(ish) times in greek and hebrew (and other languages) in the Qumran caves, along with a bunch of other stuff. Each of those times is a greek-literate persons' "bible". And they're all a little different. And they have their own notes in them too. They were probably paid to do it. At least some of them said they were rabbis.

Biblical scholars don't consider "The Septuagint" (Egyptian) to be any single translation and why they use the term "Majority Text" and stuff like that, to justify grouping all that stuff into "their" New Testaments'.

If it were possibly so simple as that, there probably wouldn't be so many forms of christianity.

You may enjoy the "map" on page two:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081031050603/http://www.tniv.c...

My software gets done.

The idea that it would suddenly not be done because the compiler upgraded sounds like a potentially limitless amount of future work. Why would I want to invest in something that promises that?

I’m surprised it got my timezone and location wrong. I’m less surprised they miscounted the number of speakers and my brand of gpu so confidently.

A big problem with being so wrong is I can’t use this to show anyone how tracking works online, because this is nothing like how tracking is actually done on line.

On the other hand, it’s a great advertisement for Apple.

I've got an emacs uptime measured in years, so I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm happy that you're happy.

What are you talking about?

You can do it in the background with:

https://pavpanchekha.com/blog/emacs-keylogger.html

and periodically update the latency parameters to be just over your natural typing speed.

Ain’t no way you read one 100 page paper let alone two with enough understanding to make such a claim.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The most uncomfortable piece is where he shows screenshots “proving” his earnestness is unrewarded instead of the chats that are actually being complained about.

That he does so with tremendous gymnastics is perhaps soothing to investors, but every researcher I show this post to today says “see I knew ‘AI’ would steal my research”

So yeah, maybe we are reading different things.

It's always been a thing: We programmed on paper before we had screen editors, and so early screen editors have always had a way to murder trees on demand:

In vi it's :ha

In emacs it's M-x print-buffer

> It has been a while since I printed a plain text file, but I guess there's still a similar command available with some research.

`lp myfile.txt`

I still prefer using hardcopy for reading/debugging.

Nonsense. The core reason to enforce trademarks is to prove that you have it.

The yo-yo used to be a trademark too, but the problem was what else do you call it? If the "owner" of a trademark cannot defend it, they don't have it. That's how trademark law is very different than copyright (which is implicit and automatic): You can lose a trademark even if you register it and popularise it, if you can't prove that the trademark represents your actual trade.

> [I think] the trademark should hold for as long as a reasonable person can be confused by the new Twitter regardless of people's dislike towards Elon.

That's your opinion man. Thankfully the law doesn't work that way.

I don't even know whether you mean X (the new thing that was once twitter) or tweet (the new thing that claims to will-be what twitter once was)

> I may be biased because I still go to Twitter via twitter.com.

and that didn't help in the slightest, but domain squatting is very common on the Internet.

If you have an LLM add 2+2, it is doing a tremendous number of additions and multiplications it doesn't have to, same as us, and I am not sure the LLM can answer any more questions about that process than we can about ourselves.

> We're not machines. We can't do thousands of Monte Carlo tree searches per second.

You sound so sure of that, but I have seen people catch a ball, and I am not so sure that any artificial person should be any more aware of the tremendous maths they are "solving"

From the perspective of a game with far fewer rules, "trying to imitate AI" might not mean anything like what you are thinking.

When someone sells "ads" they are selling the placement itself. When advertisers buy this, they use "AdWords" or "Doubleclick for Advertisers".

Many DFP users got a checkbox one day permitting Google to sell ads and checked this. As a result, Google was able to outcompete _every_ ad publisher, and now "ad tech" doesn't make money buy "ads" does.

Google is right that they cannot separate them, but is lying about why: Neither unit would be profitable without the monopoly, because quite frankly if someone else could sell ads without sucking a ton of money off the top to make a failing self-driving car company, they would and simply win on price.

You can look all this stuff up yourself.

Azure's cost of revenue is someplace between 14% (Productivity and Business Processes) and 36% (Intelligent Cloud). Software is 1%.

Looks to me like Software pays for the whole thing.