This is super cool. Just one question. I noticed that papers have different spacing between them. Is that because a paper's placement is based on correlation with neighbors, or just random placement?
> Strong said it was not known when the bacterium entered the water, only that it was present during routine fecal bacteria testing on the discharged water.
This is so true especially in this age of AI assisted development. I see a lot of junior developers, and even a bit of senior developers, care more about code output, rather than code comprehension. You ask them to explain a PR and they just fall apart.
Humans aren't deterministic. Determinism is a red herring. There are lots of other problems with agentic programming, but this is not at the top of the list.
I agree with the humans aren't deterministic, but I feel like that wasn't the scope of the original commentator. Humans are not deterministic, yes. Neither are LLMs. Both should be phased out of processes that need to be deterministic. What do you think?
I don't think processes have to be deterministic. Results should be, in the following sense: Both humans and LLMs should write software that is well-written, well-tested, well-documented, and that meets the spec. But this still leaves a lot of room for creativity (or rolling dice).
"Humans don't always sum two integers correctly. Getting the correct sum is a red herring! There are lots of other problems with my beehive-based calculator [0], but that is not at the top of the list..."
It doesn't matter what we are, what matters is what we want, and whether what we built actually works the way we want it to work.
[0] Discworld's Ponder Stibbons would be rolling in his, grave, or more likely his "Early Death package" pocket-dimension jar.
See my reply to the sibling. Yes, it matters that the outcome is a working system! It doesn't matter whether the system was created by a human pressing keys on a keyboard.
Then again you produce public open-source data when you contribute to OSM, and nothing prevents the military from using it for morally questionable purposes... at the end of the day the only difference is the intermediary that could make a profit selling the data, no?
No, the huge difference is creating the good part. Where is the open data for the general public created from Pokemon GO? You can't stop the military using open data but that is on them. The evil is them getting your private data to have an exclusive advantage people have no control or transparency over.
I was talking about a difference for the bad outcome in this case... if Pokemon Go was open souce and public, the military could have done the same, for that matter the might be doing the same with OSM data to some extend right now and it would be harder to know about it.
Open-source software and data are obviously public goods I support. I was just pointing out that the only "evil" parts here are rent seekers reselling this data and the military... not the people assembling the data (players).
You have no idea what they are selling though. You can ask to get bad things removed from Open Street Maps. It isn't just the money making aspect it's the secrecy too.
Street complete does load width - it can be quite useful for example for the fire fighters. They can try to plot some routes based on OSM data, then check if the narrow places are actually there and reach out to the city to address them, so their fire engines can get through.
That's a fair use for the data, but it would be hilarious if StreetComplete asked users to get a trundle wheel and measure the width of roads around embassies or seats of government...
I was questioning the qualification of Pokemon Go being "evil" here, it's the data broker and the military who are evil in this case in my opinion. (Making it open-source also doesn't help, as I said we'd only short-circuit the intermediary who sold this data).
Maybe it's a useless nuance, but I don't think Pokemon Go gamers should feel/evil or even that they should be careful the next time they try to entertain themselves.
I like to think it depends on what the actual topic is. Even the article's examples reinforce this.
98% market share? Amazing.
98% browser support? There are 15 billion screens in the world. 2% of that is 300 million. Hardly a number we can ignore. Edge cases for those 2% should be considered and implemented
