Can you provide the original source code and the patch provided by AI which did the change?

Well, at least some page table entries were created. Free memory block list in heap was extended as well (though this could be avoided if only brk or mmap were used). The operation has some overhead but it is very little if the allocated memory is never used.

This is from programmers who know C or C++ and are lazy to learn something new. They bash Rust since it is the most viable safe option for domains where C/C++ is used. Part of the "hate" is also that Rust has ownership type system. It is more restrictive than "normal" type system v C/C++. It is harder to use especially if you do not have prior experience with "limiting" languages like e.g. Haskell or Clean.

The article claims they tested the classifier on a different set of people (not the set of people the classifier was trained on).

My dreams are kind of boring. I get the ones I remember rarely, maybe once a month. The first dreams I remember were already dreams where I knew I'm dreaming and I could control them to some level. But the more control I extorted the sooner they ended. The one in which I managed to fly (for a few seconds in subjective time) was fun. It was and is quite easy to find out I'm dreaming. Reality does not work well while dreaming. E.g. clocks not moving, impossibility to investigate more and more into detail, law of physics not obeyed, ... Later on, the dreams got even more boring since I got them in third person mode - kind of like a movie or observation of an experiment. When this period started I went to search whether I'm defective. Thanks god, third person dreams happen to many people.

I do not remember any scary dream. But my mom told me that I had one when I was a kid. She made a macrame depicting a specter for me and put it in my bedroom. The macrame specter was supposed to protect me. I guess it worked either by banishing the bad dreams or by making me forgetful enough that I did not remember any :)

This is such a crappy argument! To illustrate I'll give you an analogy: You can walk very safely on stairs without handrails if you want to.
Despite that building codes generally require handrails for stairs.

+1

:) To be honest I think that more than 2 wheel recumbents suck. E.g. trikes are not good for healthy people who can maintain balance; trikes are too clumsy. But something like a two-wheel "high racer" with short wheel base are fine for normal city use. Occasional curbs up to about 6 inches are not a problem. One can just ride on a small curb slowly in approximately perpendicular direction without an issue. I use my recumbent for any errands which are over paved roads, do not need a car trunk and are not longer than 34 miles.

Recumbents are a complete crap outside of paved roads. You cannot do a bunny hop on them which more or less prohibits their use for "cross country", "trail", "enduro", ... Bumps are much more uncomfortable when your whole back is in contact with the bicycle (in contrast to just the butt). One cannot stand on pedals to overcome a bumpy region more comfortably.

For Lithium Ion it is about 0.3 watts per gram. In other words, motor weight is a rounding error for battery weight. Well high power density motors are also high speed. They will need transmission with a big down-step ratio (somewhere in the range of 100). That will not be efficient (somewhere in the range of 50%). Other option is less energy dense, higher torque, lower RPM motor. Common electric bicycles use this approach to keep the whole electric support efficient since the battery capacity (energy density) is the biggest problem. Even bigger than battery power density.

I like recumbents. I have one. I use it for training and small errands. It is a good bicycle for paved roads.

You can get small electrical motors in the power density range of about 8 watts per gram very easily. Just look for RC model motors. Long term power output of a competitive cyclist in a race is around 400-480W. You can double rider's power with only 60 gram motor. The battery is the harder part. The peak power output of a competitive cyclist is a bout 2 kW (time limited to a few seconds only).

If it is an UCI race than the racing bicycles must be obtainable by the masses. They can be custom fitted but they cannot be custom made. The goal of UCI races is to market bicycles to people. So there must be a way for people to buy them.

It would transom cycling into a competition of small motorcycles. The limit should be: It must be only human powered and any stored energy in the bicycle should be zero joules at the start of the competition.

If that would be the goal then there would not be any technological limits except that it must be human powered and some basic safety limits (like it must have working brakes, ...).
No, bicycle races are not about technology. It is about marketing UCI approved bicycles to the masses

It does work that way. Even if the AC would have infinite efficiency (instead of typical values of 2-3), you are increasing temperature out-of-the-house by reducing temperature in-house. But I agree in general that most of the time it will not matter and Agnes is wrong in practice. The reason being that the heat capacity of all the in-house areas is too small compared to heat capacity of all the outside areas. Therefore outside temperature increase will be negligible almost always. Maybe something will be measurable in narrow streets where air flow is low and which are full of AC radiators from the apartments around.