JavaScript is 26 years old, Python is 31. They both continue to grow in importance year-on-year, JavaScript because there is nothing on the horizon which will plausibly replace it, and Python because a large number of industries and programmers genuinely love it.

I think there's a nontrivial chance they'll both still be languages of primary importance in 50 years, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that they'll at least remain as relics yet needing support the way Fortran and COBOL exist today.

It really seems to be art specifically which people are often keen to describe as worthless, not any particular category of good that artwork might fall into.

I say this not because I think it's an especially noteworthy or important objection, but to echo GP's point, that it's very hard to find AI that suits everyone, and it's not just a matter of difficulty.

I think the idea that companies go under because they aren't ambitious enough says more about modern attitudes towards growth than it does about the reality of business.

> [Hunger] stones were embedded into a river during droughts to mark the water level as a warning to future generations that they will have to endure famine-related hardships if the water sinks to this level again.

---

That's the opposite of what your source says:

> In writing, however, use to in place of used to is an error.

Used to X was the standard past tense of to use in the sense of being in the habit of:

I used to fish: I was previously in the habit of fishing, correct both in the past and today.

I use to fish: I am presently in the habit of fishing, correct in the past but no longer understood today.

The second, however, is according to MW occasionally misused to mean "I was previously in the habit of fishing".

It takes an average of 0.10kcal to walk up/down a step, averaged.[1]

2.2kg of CO2 are emitted per 2000kcal of consumption (I just averaged table 3 for want of a better idea)[2]

37 steps in a staircase (TFA, 46 total - 9 flat)

3.7kcal burned, 3.7kcal * 1.1g/kcal ~= 4g CO2 per person per trip

Obviously very rough, but unless I've made an order-of-magnitude error it's in the same ballpark.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9309638/

[2] https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937...

I won't as a policy give out information to an incoming call, and I do call back if they want any info from me. But my working memory is not endless. The topic of discussion had changed three times before he was asked for any information, and the information still wasn't PII, it was a confirmation code. The scammer knew enough about him that he wasn't especially on alert. I can well imagine that flag in my mind that I was on an incoming call having been lost before we got to that point. And I suspect that's exactly how the scam was designed.

Speed and memory is orthogonal to my point, which is about the output of two methods of arriving at an answer. I'm obviously not saying GPT-3 is anything like as efficient as running a small function.

What distinction are you drawing between the output of an interpreted program and a compiled program?

We call computers deterministic despite the fact that they don't with perfect reliability perform the calculations we set them. The probability that they'll be correct is very high, but it's not 1. So the requirement we have for something to be considered deterministic is certainly not "perfectly a hundred percent of the time", as the parent to my comment suggested.

I agree that it's fundamentally different, but I'm not exactly sure how, and I think it's subtler than you're suggesting.

Edit: More seriously, if they took this approach, people would regularly lose their codes, which would necessitate a backup means of obtaining it. Which would no doubt require the purchaser log into their Google account. And we're back at square one.

Let's not say that. Suggesting that civilians have defence duties on par with members of the military is ridiculous.

I could resign myself to Americans* being allowed to pick the global date format to save a few cycles on an operation, but frankly I don't want to. It's not that important to me, and not having aspects, albeit minor aspects, of my culture steamrolled in the name of pointless efficiently is at least a little bit important to me.

Differences create friction yes, but I'm alright with that. I would prefer a little friction to grey uniformity. You're free to think differently, but you're not the speaker for everybody else.

* I should clarify that most Americans don't seem to want this either, this isn't a jab, it's just that if we did standardise everything their choices would probably be the ones which won out.

It doesn't seem like it's been updated in a long time, and I would have expected modern software from two of the best houses in the world to handily beat it. Is it that good, or is it a matter of priorities, or something else?