It's worth a percent or two more than it was in May. Does that seem severe? Maybe what happened in between was the weird bit.

Blah blah blah assumption, blah. ACs are copy/paste services.

Good question. Their POWER series of CPUs were not insignificant in capability, their chip designers were clearly technically sophisticated, and GPUs are just specialised vector processors with a few extra bells and whistles - stuff IBM is extremely familiar with.

It would not have been difficult to release a GPU or other LLM-specific processor to go along with the POWER11. They'd been working on the POWER11 for 4 years, they knew in 2020 that LLMs had a strong potential to be significant for Big Data processing - an area you use big iron for, they're not rank amateurs, they have plenty of reserve, they could have assembled an emergency team to build a vector processor that was custom-designed for just LLM work, and released an LLM processor card that could run circles around nVidia.

They didn't. Because, as has happened before, their management is simply too stupid and too slow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Even the modern supermarket was a tool in American anti-Soviet propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There's no need to use the same recovery system for every stage either. That includes the space-based ones. SpaceX's plans for Starship are really based on their goal of going to Mars the first time, and that might work with some tweaks for a few trips to the moon too. The design of the super heavy booster is dictated by the need to refuel Starship in orbit.

The net is more efficient for the first stage and probably a second stage as well. Landing on the moon is best done with a lander designed for that, and if you're serious about regular tirps the transit in between would be best in a space-only vehicle. Eventually you're going to want to build a return booster that runs on stuff you make on the moon too.

I doubt the Chinese will use a reusable booster at all for their first few moon trips, just like the Artemis astronauts aren't going to be launching on Starship.

What if...

Someone (say someone who was familiar with doxygen and GCC) developed number of comment types, where some stipulated preconditions that must be true for the function to run correctly, postconditions that must be true once the function has run, kernel facilities that the function definitely needs, and kernel facilities that the function definitely doesn't need. These would all be optional for any given function.

A static checker could then validate if the code meets the behaviour expected by the programmer. This is precisely what is done in SPARK, a fork of Ada for high-reliability code. Combined with existing static checker capabilities, this would greatly increase the number of bugs that could be caught with all kinds of tools, AI included.

It could ALSO build a full fine-grained mapping for any fine-grained mandatory access controls system. You'd also want includes that you could import for precompiled libraries. This would allow someone to verify if the code was making unanticipated/undesirable calls but would also make SELinux possible to develop for at the application level.

It would not be trivial. If it was trivial, it would have been done simply because it already IS done in other languages and that makes it "obvious" to anyone who has been programming for a while. However, it should not be massively complicated, simply because you can use AI as the static checker. Once it has a definite set of bounda that must be satisfied, it should be much more capable of knowing what paths would violate those bounds. Which means that the checker stage essentially is trivial today, leaving only the markup stage.

No but I uh understand the human English language and you mean to imply that is what I am suggesting

You might want to study the English language a bit more. Maybe some history too. The revolutionary US is often held up as an attempt to build a classless society, in contrast to Europe's aristocracy. That's not entirely accurate, the US founders had a bunch of different ideas about classism, and, uh, there's slavery of course, but people like John Adams purposely tried to structure the new government to prevent the class tyranny that the old aristocratic systems suffered from.

TLDR: I was agreeing with you.

It's even funnier when you know that the Russians did the same thing in the 90s.

This is a demonstration. 60 feet is pretty modest, the Russians did 20 m in the 90s and planned 60 m. These guys are aiming for 180 ft (~60 m). Even that is fairly modest by what you could potentially do. The US has 100 m dish antennas in orbit.

Little late for that. Like 35 years late.

The booster doesn't go to the moon anyway.

You make a question answering web service and then people pay you to have it answer their questions. How unfair. Oh the humanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"One day, shortly before Christmas, an insect becomes jammed in a teleprinter, which misprints a copy of an arrest warrant it was receiving. This leads to the arrest and death during interrogation of cobbler Archibald Buttle instead of suspected terrorist Archibald Tuttle. ..."

Is to set coursework and exams that are specifically crafted to exploit where AI is weak or prone to hallucinate.

You do not ban cheating, because those who cheat will inevitably find ways to circumvent the ban.

Rather, you exploit the properties of the mechanisms of cheating to ensure that those who actually understand the ideas are marked relatively highly (regardless of whether they reach the textbook conclusion) and whose who do not understand the ideas cannot do well even if they give what is in the textbook.

The interest should not be in precise answers, but in precise use of tools of reasoning and analysis, because this is what actually matters when it comes to understanding. Yes, it means you can't standardise so easily, and you have to devise things in ways that don't penalise intuitive thinkers over methodical thinkers, but you cannot teach a subject properly if you are only concerned about the surface.

Did I say you did?