How could it?

Evolution "optimizes" (as far as local hill climbing can go) fitness, which is the ability to produce viable offspring. Genes get mutated and then combined (in sexual species) and passed to offspring via reproduction ... that's the process that results in biological evolution, which is the change over time of the presence of alleles in a population. That's it -- there's no secret "evolution" sauce or engine. The optimization for fitness occurs through the environment affecting the relative survivability of traits--traits that increase survivability become more common in the population--this part is tautological.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

> the dinosaurs had split from crocodiles

Birds and crocodiles are both archosaurs (which includes all dinosaurs as well as crocodiles) and are each others' closest living relatives.

> anaerobic glycolysis that is significantly less efficient than oxygen-powered metabolism

> Oxygen molecules make energy production in cells extremely efficient.

> the presence of oxygen makes energy extraction from a single glucose molecule 15 times as efficient, and sometimes more.

> This energetic ability is powered by an inefficient metabolism.

> This suggested that the strange structure wasn’t bringing oxygen into the bird’s retina; rather, it was helping to pump glucose in, thereby enabling the less efficient anaerobic process.

No, you're simply wrong. UB means that anything can happen. And from a security perspective, that is vital to understand.

The only proper response to this code (or similar UB due to ambiguous sequence points) if found in production is to rewrite it and fire or reeducate the author.

Sorry, but some people just aren't competent.

> it is absolutely true that some people’s brains have straight up broken by his antics.

Of course this ridiculous hyperbole is false and intellectually dishonest, and

> It’s the other people who are bad and wrong. You aren’t wrong about anything; and they’re wrong about everything.

is quite some projection and is a non sequitur to the comment this guy was responding to.

Not to anyone who is intellectually honest.

This might be helpful: https://mojolang.org/docs/manual/python-to-mojo/

I won't respond further.

> When that debate is literal (sic) predicated on the assumption that the ability to process language implies consciousness?

This is an incoherent claim. Debates are between people with differing claims and often differing assumptions; they aren't "predicated" on some assumption or another--that's a category mistake.

Someone can easily argue that LLMs are conscious (or have qualia--that was the disputed claim, and they aren't the same thing) without the strong claim that the ability to process language entails consciousness ... perhaps it is the processing of language together with other features that they think indicates consciousness. For instance, George Lemoine and Richard Dawkins didn't base their judgments on consciousness on such an entailment, but rather on the specifics of what the LLMs said to them.

I won't respond about this again.