I think where it shines is in helping you write code you’ve never written before. I never touched Swift before and I made a fully functional iOS app in a week. Also, even with stuff I have done before, I can say “write me a function that does x” and it will and it usually works.

Like just yesterday I asked it to write me a function that would generate and serve up an .ics file based on a selected date and extrapolate the date of a recurring monthly meeting based on the day of the week picked and its position (1st week, 2nd week, etc) within the month and then make the .ics file reflect all that. I could have generated that code myself by hand but it would have probably taken me an hour or two. It did it in about five seconds and it worked perfectly.

Yeah, you have to know what you’re doing in general and there’s a lot of babysitting involved, but anyone who thinks it’s just useless is plain wrong. It’s fucking amazing.

Edit: lol the article is referring to a study that was using GPT 3.5, which is all but useless for coding. 4.0 has been out for a year blowing everybody’s minds. Clickbait trash.

Milkman Dan!

Do the gay vampires feed on chickens?

I am confused. I realize this is just a flag change not even a dev problem but PEBKAC, still - in the event of an actual bug, why wouldn’t Microsoft have a dev contribute to the project and fix it instead of just opening a ticket?

I do OfferUp and Craigslist all the time. I have yet to meet anyone other than pleasant, helpful people. Knock on wood I guess.

Yeah, this is my 65-year-old aunt. Never got covid she says - and yet she’s been sick more than once since 2019. She just never tests - so she never gets covid! Easy!

I’m sorry, which editor allows you to exit easily with escape colon q bang enter?

Uh huh. That’s what I thought.

What is religion, if not conjecture about the origin of mankind (and by extension the universe) that people believe without evidence?

Religion identifies the simulator and insists that its intermediaries can offer a liaison between you and them, and also that if you don’t believe in their particular simulator, you will be punished. It has been used for centuries to control the populace and to take their money.

A proponent of simulation theory isn’t likely to tell you that it solves any philosophical problems, or that they now understand the universe wholly. I’ve never heard anyone talking about it claim that they know who/what is behind the simulation.

So IMO the distinction between the two couldn’t be more clear.

I imagine there’s at least a couple wacko groups out of there trying to twist simulation theory into a purely religious endeavor, but that wouldn’t represent the mainstream conversation about it.

I didn’t borrow it, it was provided to me as a service for consideration. The consideration is the not-insignificant markup on all the food I bought from them.

The practical reality is you will never get 100% participation in cart returning and the store will therefore always need people to run the parking lot. They know this, I know this, everybody knows this. Since this is the reality, you pay for the employee to return your carts whether you politely return them or not. Or did you imagine that the grocery store provides carts for everyone out of their deep-seated sense of altruism?

I return my cart if they have returns conveniently placed near where I am parked, but otherwise my feelings are well summed up by Zorg.

This picture gave me PTSD.

Yes and this is what Starfield doesn’t do. Starfield doesn’t actually have whole planets generated by a shared seed. Planets in Starfield are just unlimited sources of randomly generated playboxes. Since the planets don’t actually exist, they can’t properly be said to be explorable.

For anyone interested in this topic, there is a super great video that explains the difference between procedural generation and random generation and how a tiny amount of data can be used to generate extremely complex things.

But I don’t think they can grab that explorer fanbase again, they are just against procedural generation in general, they probably wanted Outer Worlds but bigger.

I don’t think that’s true. Elite Dangerous is one of my favorite games and it’s procedurally generated. I think the issue is that that’s not exactly what Starfield is.

When you “land” in Starfield (outside a handcrafted city or similar), you land in a procedurally generated box made just for you. It isn’t repeatable by anybody but you. Other people who “land” in the same spot will not see what you saw, they get their own procedurally generated box. The contents of the box are similar (the terrain is the right color, the flora and fauna are the same). If you were to see something particularly cool in your box (although I never did when I was playing the game) - ie: “unusually tall mountain range” or “unusually deep valley” - you can’t tell someone “hey go to coordinates x,y and check this out!” You CAN do this in Elite Dangerous. All worlds, all settlements - everything is the same for everyone, and if you explore through it all and you find something interesting, you can share it with people.

In Starfield, your box always contains an uninteresting/unremarkable patch of terrain and magically, literally everywhere you land, there are structures and ships within walking distance - none of which anyone can get to but you.

There is literally no WAY to explore. Everywhere you land, it’s just another box and it will always contain the same variation on the same things. That isn’t exploration. Exploration implies things that exist whether you are there or not and which can be found by someone if they look long enough.

ChatGPT’s Answer:

The expression 6/2(1+2) involves both multiplication and division. According to the order of operations (PEMDAS/BODMAS), you should perform operations inside parentheses first, then any multiplication or division from left to right.

Let’s break down the expression step by step:

Inside the parentheses: 1 + 2 = 3

Now the expression becomes 6/2 * 3

Division: 6/2 = 3

Multiplication: 3 * 3 = 9

So, 6/2(1+2) is equal to 9.

Amazingly well put. Capitalism is necessary. Unrestrained capitalism is deadly. The unfortunate reality of capitalism is that even as it is in the process of burning everything to the ground, it looks for all the world like glorious success. And it is glorious success, if you don’t compare it to what could be in a system where it was properly restrained.

Soaking seems like a particularly egregious loophole.

Boy does this ring true. I worked for years for a giant multinational publisher and one of their biggest sources of income was taking government money for educational stuff for schools and turning that money into absolutely no useful products while making sure no opportunity to hire another middle manager was overlooked.

OMG so beautiful. And a beauty mark! I have a similar boy.

deleted by creator

Al Jourgensen.