How much of this is actually FROM aging, and how much is from a combination of diet, exercise and activity level or lack thereof, bad habits that IMO are perpetuated by our current work culture, etc?

So many factors potentially involved - we need, IMO, answers based on complete questions that factor in as many variables as possible. Remember how so many people believed that your metabolism tanks after 30, and yet years later on it was found that in fact it stays relatively level until ~60?

And companies that do this shit will keep gaslighting us into thinking products HAVE to go up in cost, that financial issues are inevitable, and into thinking that opposing that notion is somehow socialism or communism (such as suggesting that whatever pay and bonuses for C-suites is not in stocks but actual currency can be reduced to better pay employees and give the company more money in case of financial hardships while still allowing the C-suites to live very comfortably annually). It's utterly retarded how much those things have been allowed to fester unchallenged.

Not really - between the people in a country not being a monolith, and people voting X way or Y way not necessarily preventing you from seeing patterns (accuracy or lack thereof aside).

Well, today I learned! Interesting factoid!

I'm personally fond of Jarlsberg.

One question I would have here, with voices, is how do you go about gaining that without taking away rights from others - for example someone who may coincidentally have a similar voice to make a model of their own voice, etc?


Sounds silly, I know, but I am speaking from the perspective of someone who has a huge biological family (learned about it 12 years ago in fact), who despite not growing up together have a metric fuckton of similarities in habit, behavior, voice, and appearance too.

People are not snowflakes - in that we are not so unique that features found in one person aren't unable to be present in another. If we don't go about dealing with the AI issues carefully, we could end up making IP laws and the like even more fucked up than they really are - and in a way that benefits the corporations that people are afraid of/trying to wrangle in the first place.

Nothing inherently MAGA, or "not-MAGA," about thinking carbon credits sound like bullshit.

Er ... what? What am I missing that makes any of this relevant to the story? (Maybe I need to drink my coffee / my brain cells haven't kicked into gear yet).

That was the one downside to studying CS I faced, IMO: SO MANY different areas to focus on, some more related than others, all of which I found, still find extremely fascinating (even the areas that I struggled a little). Makes it hard to just "pick one" to focus on (or two or three even).

*be fun. I accidentally a word.

Even in college, that's bullshit. Education doesn't have to be like watching a heart stopping, floor stomping musical spectacular, but it should be engaging, interesting, and can absolutely fun - and this really is a great way to learn. IMO, OP is being stupid.

At what point, and at which place, should we put the onus on the programming language, and not the programmer(s)?

IDK, it just feels like "A lot of bug happen while using X programming language" doesn't tell us a lot in terms of the programmers and their training, their practices, the knowledge being shared to avoid bugs, etc, and I wonder how much of the problems are mitigated by knowledge, training, and know-how.

I guess I really like having the control over my code that the likes of C, C++, and assembly have as well, but that really is just a piece of it. Another part of it is a question of how much we risk, in the name of "memory safety," handicapping our coders.

(You're not doing yourself any favors by just misusing "flamebait" and "troll" moderation ratings, if anything, just proving you're not someone who should be moderating).

All the citations needed.

I am convinced that people mod with their emotions rather than with their brains as they ought to when it comes to AI discussions - what is flamebait about responding to a grossly and overly broad statement about something like "the AI industry," and pointing out that the stuff that is causing controversy isn't the "AI industry" on the whole?

People need to be concise, it is a lack of conciseness that is making it hard for people on all ends of the debate to at least understand what the other is talking about w/o shouting over each other.