To be fair, you went to war with Iraq due to faked and purposely misinterpreted intel. Not even that well faked either: much of the rest of the world called bullshit.

You did almost nuke various countries, including your own, because Strategic Air Command couldn't tell the difference between jamming and a solar storm, a jumpy guard saw a bear climbing a fence, somebody thought swans were Soviet aircraft, Nixon was a mean drunk, the moon, bombers kept dropping nukes by accident, an AT&T switch failed in Colorado, bomb detectors couldn't tell the difference between a nuclear attack and a power outage, someone accidentally loaded a training scenario onto a NORAD computer, a couple of those NORAD computers had bad chips, etc.

The best irony is unintentional self deprecating irony.

HAL 9000 was given a starship.

AI can only start a nuclear war if someone gives it launch control over nuclear missiles. A coin flipping device could also start a nuclear war if someone gave it launch control over nuclear missiles.* If a coin flipping device can trigger the doom scenario just as well as AI is AI really the problem?

Based on what? What makes something wrong or right in production providing the toolkit works and exists to allow it to be widely adopted and mass produced, and the end goal of the device is achieved?

Exactly. About the only thing that matters for "in production" is "meets requirements", whatever those may be. It's pretty rare that one of those is "squeeze the maximum possible performance out of a single-cycle multi-hundred MHz MCU". Sure for mass, low cost consumer products, it's worth pending a lot to save 10 cents on the MCU but it isn't for most of us.

I've seen similar complaints before: "Arduino has no place in production,

I've seen that too. I now point them to Finder PLC. It' an industrial unit that is basically an arduino with relays etc in a nice box.

Dude.

Back in the 80s I was running basic on a machine with a tenth of the RAM and less than a thousandth of the computing power. It did not "confound the learning process". These days I also often use the Arduino environment because the performance is adequate for me needs and so it's a waste of time to slog through the datasheet and do it all by hand.

Who cares if they are a bit different from python? I don't write C++ on an MCU in the same way I'm writing it on the server because I'm writing very different things.

This really sounds like nerd snobbery to me. Modern microcontrollers are so ludicrously powerful now many people dipping into them won't need to scratch the surface of the performance on offer. And that's ok.

All of the US states I cared to check had y=mx+b in the curriculum by grade 8 at the latest. Even the shitty ones where you learn it's god's will.

Uh huh.

You're long on claiming special knowledge and awfully short on demonstrating it. If you disagree then you don't know how it works.

You don't lose your PhD for getting scooped. You also don't lose it for scooping someone, even if you were "inspired" by their unpublished work. Ideas aren't protected. If you send them off to some corporation without an NDA, or a sufficiently unethical colleague, they'll get swiped with no repercussions except maybe distaste from the community. If it's a normal corp they might even tell you you can't publish your own work.

PhDs are revoked very seldomly and you generally have to do something bad relating to your own thesis to lose one.

Those were honorary degrees. He did not lose his actual PhD, in education. That should tell you how hard it is. It happens extremely rarely and pretty much always for plagiarizing or faking data in your thesis. You certainly don't lose one because you got scooped.

Engineers are well aware that time exists. The thing they forget is that people who don't know the specific set of tools they learned in university or were forced to learn for their job exist.

I remember the horrors of engineers writing large GUI programs in Matlab.

Why is it silly? It's perfectly reasonable for lots of things.

The reason it's used a lot in education is because you're not teaching kids to write embedded programs for microcontrollers. You're teaching them how to program computers. The computer they're programming just happens to be a $5 one that can do things kids thing are cool like making animated patterns with LEDs.

However, it's because I believe many great consumer technology leaps were driven by porn: photography, home video, the internet, the smart phone, etc.

The smartphone??

I mean it was convincingly invented, if not widely used by IBM in 1993. It was made to look very impressive (albeit wired) in the late 90s by Olivetti. And of course PDAs approaching from the other end being more computer and less data. J2ME phones came out which were a pile of shit. Maybe you could get a shit game on them. I don't really know if Blackberries count: they were messaging first but did they have any generality beyond that? There was of course the legendary N900, and some impressive (for the time) yet deeply wonky Symbian devices.Then in 2007, Apple came out with a rather good dumbphone which was turned into a smartphone by Cydia, which Apple then got in on the game a year later (which is a bit weird if you think about it).

None of those were porn. It was all about connectivity and messaging and nerdy shit especially businessnerd shit (except the N900 which was real nerd shit). Then fashion, then just plain old usefulness.

I mean that's not to say people don't watch porn on a phone on a plane (shit head in 23A knows what I'm talking about you utter wanker, but not in that case literally thank god), but I don't there's a convincing case that porn had a significant role. Pocket computers were obviously useful, even more so with a data connection, and people had been trying to get them working for years before it finally took off.

Is this true for animated films too?

Yes.

What about hybrid live action and animated?

Yes.

Animated films that are CGI based rather than hand drawn/painted?

Yes.

Hand drawn that are computer "painted"?

Yes.

Ah, you're one of the people who thinks that your neurons are gateways to the unphysical realm? Neurons in general, or the pineal in particular?

Also, this has nothing to do with my post. Did you reply to the wrong one?

If true, that seems to foreclose this claim.

The timing for it being from the training data indeed seems pretty tight. There is still the option of someone reading the chat transcript and giving the model a little prompting in the right direction.