Humanity has never faced superhuman intelligence before. It is a problem fundamentally unlike all other problems. We cannot adapt and overcome, because it will adapt to us faster than we will adapt to it.
That's absurd. If you're talking to somebody who shares NONE of your cultural values, you can never convince them of anything. You have to start your argument from some point of agreement.
Hitler is used because he is the ONLY universally shared cultural value.
Godwin's Law is true, but apparently even Godwin doesn't understand why.
People inevitably make Hitler comparisons because it's the only moral bedrock we have left. There is no other issue upon which we can all be expected to agree.
Here's how Internet discussions work:
I say "X is bad". Somebody disagrees, so I say "X is bad because Y is bad". Somebody says "but Y isn't bad", so I have to say "Y is bad because Z is bad". Given the vast diversity of the Internet, there's going to be somebody who says "but Z isn't bad". To make my argument I have to find some basic moral bedrock, a thing that is so bad that we can ALL agree it's bad. Hitler is the ONLY thing that fits that description, so eventually every discussion will get there. That's why Godwin's Law is true.
Godwin's Law is about the fact that humans don't agree about morality. No more, no less.
This was a bad demonstration of relativistic effects. All it really does is demonstrate the Doppler effect, and it does that poorly. People are evidently not warm, because they do not glow when infrared light becomes visible. Chimneys do, but so do shadows under roofs.
The huge mushrooms emit what, gamma rays? They emit light that is visible even when enormously red-shifted.
There is no Sun or sky. No campfires. No warm machinery. No radios. No flowers with UV patterns. Nothing familiar that will illustrate something interesting about the Doppler shift and the world of invisible light.
It's a nifty idea, but finish it before releasing it.
Seriously? You are reading the code, fixing bugs, and you find formatting problems. So you back out your half-complete changes, fix the formatting, commit that change, then re-apply your fix-in-progress? You actually do that? Of course you don't.
The better policy is that code must be formatted correctly when it is committed the first time. Which is why we have style guidelines in the first place.
Coders should spend their time looking at the code, not getting distracted by style variations.
Whatever style you choose, make sure that it can be generated with whatever automatic formatting tools you have available. This allows you to cut-n-paste code from other sources, and not waste precious time hand-formatting it (or leaving it in the wrong style). It also avoids the problem of lazy programmers feeling butt-hurt when somebody points out that their code does not follow the style. They can simply run their sloppy code through the pretty-printer before committing it.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that solution is completely non-obvious, and isn't simply a restatement of the problem! What an incredibly valid patent!
I'd have been fine with it if Steam had kept just 15% of the money, and Bethesda none (they already get money selling the game).
Who cares if you don't consider Skynet to be "intelligent"? You're dead either way.
Humanity has never faced superhuman intelligence before. It is a problem fundamentally unlike all other problems. We cannot adapt and overcome, because it will adapt to us faster than we will adapt to it.
No, that's when Emacs WON that argument. Emacs is what you want, no matter what you want or how often you change your mind.
Vi is only what you want if you want vi.
Godwin's Law didn't stop being true. I see it all the time.
What do you mean "you should be able to explain"?
That's absurd. If you're talking to somebody who shares NONE of your cultural values, you can never convince them of anything. You have to start your argument from some point of agreement.
Hitler is used because he is the ONLY universally shared cultural value.
Godwin's Law is true, but apparently even Godwin doesn't understand why.
People inevitably make Hitler comparisons because it's the only moral bedrock we have left. There is no other issue upon which we can all be expected to agree.
Here's how Internet discussions work:
I say "X is bad". Somebody disagrees, so I say "X is bad because Y is bad". Somebody says "but Y isn't bad", so I have to say "Y is bad because Z is bad". Given the vast diversity of the Internet, there's going to be somebody who says "but Z isn't bad". To make my argument I have to find some basic moral bedrock, a thing that is so bad that we can ALL agree it's bad. Hitler is the ONLY thing that fits that description, so eventually every discussion will get there. That's why Godwin's Law is true.
Godwin's Law is about the fact that humans don't agree about morality. No more, no less.
"since the law came into effect"
Oh, please. It's not a law in the prescriptive sense, it's a law in the descriptive sense. It's like the law of gravity, not the law against murder.
Will it finally be able to figure out the aspect ratio of the source material?
It's 25 years old. How can it be the word of this year?
The wording of the bet states the criterion for deciding the result. You'd be betting on what the department of labor says, not "reality".
Always write your comment before reading the article. That way your mind will remain uncluttered.
This was a bad demonstration of relativistic effects. All it really does is demonstrate the Doppler effect, and it does that poorly. People are evidently not warm, because they do not glow when infrared light becomes visible. Chimneys do, but so do shadows under roofs.
The huge mushrooms emit what, gamma rays? They emit light that is visible even when enormously red-shifted.
There is no Sun or sky. No campfires. No warm machinery. No radios. No flowers with UV patterns. Nothing familiar that will illustrate something interesting about the Doppler shift and the world of invisible light.
It's a nifty idea, but finish it before releasing it.
If you don't understand the difference between coding and writing a text document, you are beyond help.
You may be using a computer, but you're not understanding what you're doing with it.
Because the former is less of a burden than the latter?
Sounds like somebody lost his job to a better coder, but doesn't want to admit it.
If it's so easy, what's stopping you from refactoring your code to fit the common style? I'm amazed you still have to make this an issue.
Seriously? You are reading the code, fixing bugs, and you find formatting problems. So you back out your half-complete changes, fix the formatting, commit that change, then re-apply your fix-in-progress? You actually do that? Of course you don't.
The better policy is that code must be formatted correctly when it is committed the first time. Which is why we have style guidelines in the first place.
Coders should spend their time looking at the code, not getting distracted by style variations.
What, your editor is too dumb to insert the right number of spaces when you hit enter? Ouch.
So nobody at your shop puts comments on the same line as code? Why? Was it forbidden by the style?
By that reasoning, you shouldn't be concerned with getting dressed before going to work. Clothing does not produce cool code, does it?
Seemingly you are the one who can't click a button. And that is your fault.
Whatever style you choose, make sure that it can be generated with whatever automatic formatting tools you have available. This allows you to cut-n-paste code from other sources, and not waste precious time hand-formatting it (or leaving it in the wrong style). It also avoids the problem of lazy programmers feeling butt-hurt when somebody points out that their code does not follow the style. They can simply run their sloppy code through the pretty-printer before committing it.