If you are dividing two numbers with no prior knowledge of these numbers or any reasonable assumptions you can make and this code is used where you can not rely on the caller to catch an exception and the code is critical for the product, then this is necessary.
If you are actually doing safety critical software, e.g. aerospace, medicine or automotive, then this is a good precaution, although you will not be writing in Python.
I might agree with that, and maybe the example posted by Karpathy is not the greatest, but what I'm constantly being faced with is try catches where it will fail silently or return a fallback/mock response, which essentially means that system will behave unexpectedly in a more subtle way down the line while leaving you clueless to as what the issue was.
I have to constantly remind Claude that we want to fail fast.
A good 10% of my Claude.md is yelling at it that no i don't want you to silently handle exceptions six calls deep into the stack and no please don't wrap my return values in weird classes full of dumb status enums "for safety"
What Intel does not seem to understand, at least from the quotes in that article, is that you are also doing open source for your customers.
Doing open source makes it easy to get customers to use your products. You could also hide them behind NDAs or licenses and make it hard to become a customer. But of course that never makes it on to a balance sheet, which makes open source expenses seem like a pure loss to the management.
It is paywalled. But let me just point out that "mathematical necessity" requires mathematics, which requires first and foremost rigorous definitions. "intelligence" is not a term you can define in mathematics.
>Here’s the mathematical setup: You have limited computational resources, uncertain future states, and multiple competing objectives.
Not only is that not a mathematical setup, this also applies to basically every physical system.
Intelligence can be defined over the entropy of probability measures with respect to certain posets in information theory and the construction I saw should extend to the world in abstract, but it's been a while since I read about it and am no longer sure about the details.
I gave up half way through. The constant description of deep emotional feelings when it comes to something as sober as data types in the rust standard library make this rather hard to read. It is difficult to untangle the point the author is trying to make from the constant bombardment with deep emotional writing.
Even if you do not expect a professional tone it is totally bizarre to write a technical article (which I would have liked to understand, since the question is interesting to me) as if you are talking to a toddler. The allusions to Grand conspiracy theories and grave emotional turns which are everywhere make the article sound as if it was written for children.
I do not like lighthearted banter, but this is not the problem. The problem is that the author has a hard time writing a single paragraph without it. They should seriously consider doing some training in technical or scientific writing.
>, I guess I understand why your username is "constant crying"
What a novel comment. But yes, I do hate the constant positivity, especially in the face of a subpar product.
Some people like to have fun. Is it so hard to look away from the things you don't personally like?
As to the underlying topic, this is a very introductory article - I warrant 20 minutes with the source code, and you'd reach the same level of understanding.
Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians, which is why politicians are very active suing random supporters of their opponents, because that is an effective way to police speech, open specifically to politicians.
I do think a lot of people care, but censorship in Germany does a lot to protect the people who could change the law. That law obviously needs to be abolished, politicians are uniquely unworthy of protection when it comes to speech.
If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
For example, the concept of privacy protecting against media coverage is actually weaker for politicians (when in official duty) than for ordinary citizens (Allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht).
And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
>If you look at the concrete laws, they are less spectacular.
And if you look at how these laws are used by politicians they look quite spectacular.
>And libel only applies to statements of facts. I.e. you can't (easily) be prosecuted for opinions, just for making harmful false claims.
The Wikipedia article and how the law was applied article disagrees.
Do not forget that this applies to insults. E.g. calling a politician "dumb" is enough to get sued. These laws create a way for politicians specifically to prosecute people criticizing them. This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
> This isn't a hypothetical, it is how the law is actually used.
You make it sound like it happens all the time and everyone is used to it. I know of once case (Pimmel-Andy), and that led to a shitstorm, including part of the police operation being declared unlawful after the fact.
A good friend of mine was recently sentenced to prison for publicly using this kind of phrase during a protest for climate justice. When Germany's equivalent of the Supreme Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, learned of this case, the court immediately ordered their release and declared the original verdict void: According to the Bundesverfassungsgericht, (in the specific situation at hand) this phrase is more a value judgment and less a factual claim.
Together with a fellow activist, who also served as informal legal counsel, they gave a talk on this case at the 38th Chaos Communication Congress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5RmTOGucZo
The CCC hasn't been only about computers since inception. They were clearly already political in the 80s, just have a look at this zine: https://ds.ccc.de/pdfs/ds024.pdf
>Yes, you read that right. German law is especially protective of politicians,
As Lee Kuan Yew pointed out, the idea that you should be able to slander anyone in power is a nice underdog philosophy (particularly popular in the US, where the underdog is always right) but what it gets you is a post-truth environment in which reputation means nothing.
And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society, not an English or French liberal society. People in power aren't suspicious just because they have power, the crank is not correct just because he's the little guy. I think Lee Kuan Yew was largely correct if one looks at Anglosphere media and politics, where truth and reputation have entirely been replaced by conspiracy and tantrums. Far from the wisdom of the crowds being some truth finding mechanism you just enable the most charismatic nutjob.
>And as a German what a lot of people don't get, we're very much an honour based society
We aren't. We are a totally Americanized failed state governed by mentally ill losers who continue to destroy this country in every possible way imaginable.
The German society which was the basis for this law does not exist anymore. Politicians are all complete clueless losers who do not deserve an ounce of respect.
>"Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) is a direct marker, formed only in the presence of ethanol, and can detect heavy or binge drinking for up to 4 weeks after consumption."
We should simultaneously use this marker to prove drunk driving instead of the clearly outdated direct measurements.
Screens are easily the most useful way to communicate complex information. Why would getting rid of them be beneficial at all? What does the device want to accomplish that something with a screen couldn't immediately do better?
Voice is inherently linear, even the most basic voice only menus are tedious to navigate.
>The AI handles the translation between the precise underlying code and the various language interfaces, ensuring that the semantics remain consistent across all views
This is not something AI will ever be good at. Simply, because it is also hard for humans to do.
Translating between programming languages is a very hard problem, because someone needs to fully understand both languages. Both humans and AI have trouble with it for the same reason and only monumental AI progress, which would have other implications, could change this.
Something as basic as addition varies wildly between languages, if you look at the details. And when it comes to understanding the details are exactly what matters.
I personally have never really experienced distractions as negative for my productivity. Of course it is annoying to be interrupted in the middle of something, but usually getting back to the task takes a few minutes at most. I never understood how people on the Internet tend to be so upset about it.
Experiences vary wildly.
Do you have daily standup from 9am-10am, followed by a short call at 11:30, planning/sync with another team at 13:30, maybe a 1:1 at 16:00? And don’t miss our community event at 17:00! Plus minor interruptions during the rest of the day. How does that sound? This is what average days at a lot of big tech companies look like.
If you are actually doing safety critical software, e.g. aerospace, medicine or automotive, then this is a good precaution, although you will not be writing in Python.
reply